gap* 


^$M»MlliSP 


^>  'fer? 


IV   A 


^Mi 


BISHOP  WHITEHOUSE 


DIOCESE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


BT 

S^IMI'  LH.    KERPOOT, 

OF  CHICAGO. 


CHICAGO: 

THOMPSON  &  DAY,  BOOK,  JOB  AND  ORNAMENTAL  PRINTERS,  86  DEARBORN  ST. 

I860. 


BISHOP  WHITEHOUSE 


DIOCESE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


BY 

SJLl&'JL,  T£.    KBRFOOT, 

OF  CHICAGO. 


CHICAGO: 

THOMPSON  &  DAY,  BOOK,  JOB  AND  ORNAMENTAL  PRINTERS,  86  DEARBORN  ST. 

I860. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  Pamphlet  was  written  shortly  after  the  late.  Diocesan  Con- 
vention of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Illinois,  and  before  the  arrival  of  the 
Bishop  and  his  family  in  Chicago. 

The  Bishop  has  rented  a  house  here,  and  is  now  with  his  family  occupying 
the  same. 

In  addition  to  the  Bishop's  own  furniture  which  he  has  there,  he  uses,  under 
a  chattel  mortgage  given  by  the  owner  and  former  occupant  of  the  dwelling, 
a  part,  if  not  a  large  part  of  the  furniture  of  that  former  occupant  and 
owner. 

I  hope  sincerely,  though  a  bold  hope,  that  the  future  now  will  do  more  for 
the  Church  in  Illinois  than  the  past  has  ;  how,  I  do  not  know,  nor  can  I  im- 
agine. 

The  Bishop  has  been  here  upwards  of  a  month,  and  yet  no  demonstration 
has  been  made  on  his  part  of  a  desire  for  reconciliation  with  his  Clergy  here, 
and  that  there  has  been  an  estrangement,  no  one,  of  course,  pretends  to  deny. 
Some  of  the  Clergy  and  their  wives  have  called  on  him,  but  I  believe,  none 
have  gained  admittance,  the  family  of  the  Bishop  being  out  or  engaged  at  the 
time  of  the  visit. 

And  now  one  word  in  justice  to  myself.  The  task  of  writing  this  document, 
which,  though  self-imposed,  was  imperative,  and  has  been  anything  but  a  pleas- 
ant one  to  me. 

I  am  a  good  Churchman  ;  I  reverence  the  office  of  Bishop  ;  I  hold  that  the 
Church  is  the  true  repository  of  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints,"  and 
that  her  Bishops  are  the  only  due  and  legitimate  channel  for  the  transmission 
of  authority.  The  man  cannot  affect  the  validity  of  the  official  acts  of  the 
functionary. 

His  laying  on  of  hands,  when  duly  done,  is  good,  let  his  own  private  faults 
be  what  they  may. 

His  ww-official  acts,  however,  his  secular  operations,  even  when  springing 
out  of  his  Holy  calling,  must  be  in  keeping  with  Christian  standards,  in  order 
to  receive  our  sanction. 

And  I  cannot  approve  of  wrong  plans  or  devices,  even  when  conceived  by  a 
brain  covered  by  a  mitre. 


BISHOP  WHITEHOUSE 


AND    THE 


DIOCESE    OF    ILLINOIS 


I  am  hazarding  nothing  in  saying  that  all  who  know  anything 
regarding  the  history  of  Ecclesiastical  affairs  in  the  Diocese  of 
Illinois  for  the  past  nine  years  will  agree  with  me,  that  the 
present  position  or  situation  of  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  is 
far  from  being  either  a  pleasant  or  an  enviable  one. 

Let  the  fault,  let  the  sin,  lie  at  whose  door  it  may — still,  that  in 
some  place  or  other,  from  some  cause  or  other  there  exists  a  great 
wrong  here,  none  can  deny.  My  present  purpose  is,  if  possi- 
ble, to  trace  home  that  fault,  according  to  my  mind,  to  charge 
that  wrong  where  according  to  my  mind  it  belongs.  To 
this  end  I  will  give  facts  and  figures,  and  with  such  comments 
on  the  same  as  may  be  necessary  to  elucidate  those  facts,  and 
to  link  together  the  documents  and  their  history  showing  them 
to  be  facts,  to  send  them  forth  to  the  world  to  speak  for  them- 
selves. 

And  giving  my  conviction  at  once,  I  will  afterwards  show 
the  ground  of  that  conviction.  My  readers  will  thus  see  for 
themselves,  and  will  of  themselves  be  able  to  judge  of  the 
correctness  or  falseness  of  my  conclusion.     I  make,  then,  the 

general  charge,  that  to  Bishop  "Whitehouse  in  the  mam  belongs 

2 


6  BISHOP   WHITEHOUSE   A>TD 

the  fault  of  the  present  condition  of  affairs  in  the  Diocese  of 
Illinois.  The  main  prime  cause  or  source  of  the  constant  and 
unceasing  difficulties,  of  one  kind  after  another,  one  scarcely 
being  settled  before  a  new  one  would  spring  up,  being  the 
nature  of  the  man.  To  his  intimates  I  make  no  new  announce- 
ment here.  All  who  know  him,  and  will  be  frank  enough  to 
bear  testimony  on  the  subject,  will  agree  with  me  and  endorse 
my  position. 

The  development  of  this  peculiar  nature  or  disposition  was 
not  reserved  for  the  time  at  which  he  assumed  the  mitre.  His 
New  York  friends  knew  it  before  we  called  him.  It  has  made 
him  liable  to  objections  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  been 
connected  with  him  at  all  times,  and  I  will  publish  documents, 
if  necessary,  to  prove  this.  The  peculiar  turn  of  his  mind — 
the  tendency  to  close  framing  of  bargains  and  contracts  —  the 
mind  at  all  times  leaning  towards  the  accumulation  of  money — 
the  peculiar  interpretation  of  language  when  embodied  in 
secular  or  pecuniary  bargains,  an  acuteness  in  framing  agree- 
ments as  touching  the  subsequent  circumstances  under  which 
those  agreements  would  be  used,  unfulfilled  or  carried  out,  mark 
the  man.  A  singular  degree  of  shrewdness  in  this  line,  so 
unusual  in  a  clergyman,  and  I  may  say  so  dangerous  to  the 
singleness  or  purity  of  the  sphere  of  thought  and  mind  of  one 
given  to  holy  things,  has  so  characterized  the  outward  life  of 
Bishop  Whitehouse,  that  we  must  of  necessity  infer  that  the 
inner  life  has  been  of  this  kind  to  an  extent  uncommon  in 
Ecclesiastics. 

Even  for  argument's  sake,  admitting  that  the  sole  cause  is 
not  by  any  means  in  Bishop  Whitehouse — that  there  have  been 
wrongs  done  by  those  in  his  Diocese,  who  should  not  have 
been  guilty  of  them;  still,  is  it  not  strange  that  a  Bishop 
should  not  have  to-day,  should  not  have  had  in  all  the  ehanges 
of  clergy  during  the  past  nine  years  in  the  metropolitan  city  of 
his  Diocese,  one  clergyman  to  stand  up  in  his  defence  against 


THE   DIOCESE    OP   ILLINOIS. 


the  general  charge  of  a  strong  tendency  to  wrong  doing — to 
shrewd  management — to  financial  scheming,  to  skill  in  baffling, 

to  concentrating  in  himself  power  and  control,  to  exercising 
judgment  ih  every  thing,  save  in  that  one  glorious  line,  which 
stilus  to  engage  the  heart  and  sonl  of  every  other  Bishop  of 
the  Church,  namely,  the  winning  of  souls  to  Christ,  hy  plant- 
ing and  nurturing  churches  in  his  Diocese,  by  devising  schemes 
for  schools,  by  having  Church-homes,  hy  enlisting  the  hearts  of 
the  generous  in  Orphan  Asylums,  and  doing  good  in  the  various 
methods  to  which  Christ's  Church  is  so  admirably  adapted. 
But  no,  there  is  no  such  champion  or  defender,  and  there  has 
not  been  at  any  time,  and  if  ever  any  one  undertook  the  task, 
he  soon  found  it  one  his  ability  and  his  conscience  would  not 
allow  him  to  perform. 

Not  one  Church  scheme  is  on  foot  to-day  in  the  whole 
Diocese;  not  one  has  been  attempted,  save  that  of  the 
Cathedral.  And  that  was  no  sooner  conceived,  that  the  ten- 
dency of  which  I  have  spoken  began  to  show  itself.  Hearts, 
warm  with  the  desire  to  aid  their  Bishop  grew  cold  and  chilled 
with  the  plain  and  palpable  evidence  of  a  nature  which  the 
world  in  its  dealings  shuns,  and  which,  when  shown  in  a  Bishop, 
turned  back  to  their  sources,  soured  and  disappointed  the 
warm  out-gushings  of  generous  souls.  And,  I  speak  what  I 
know,  when  I  say  that  the  result  of  that  dampening  is  that 
men  who  then  stood  ready  to  give  to  the  Church — men  who 
were  then  (eight  years  since)  young  in  years,  being  now  com- 
paratively old,  and  not  having  in  the  meantime  had  the  school- 
ing they  would  have  had  in  the  art  of  giving,  being  now,  as 
then,  not  professed  followers  of  Christ,  attribute  to  religion  the 
wrong  they  conceive  to  have  been  done  by  the  Bishop. 

The  initiatory  scheme  or  plan  entered  into  by  the  Bishop 
was  one,  as  the  world  knows,  to  furnish  for  himself  what  he 
knew  the  Diocese  could  not  pay  him,  a  salary.  That  failed 
because  Trinity  Parish  coidd  not  in  some  way  meet  his  require- 


BISHOP    AVHITEIIOUSE    AM) 


meats.  The  next  was  a  Real  Estate  operation,  to  which  the 
hearts  of  Churchmen  responded  with  a  promptness  and  liber- 
ality, at  that  time,  more  creditable  to  their  generosity  than  to 
their  pecuniary  prudence  or  closeness.  This  not  only  failed, 
by  reason  of  the  early  development  of  the  turn  which  the 
Bishop  was  giving  to  the  matter,  but  became  an  "  issue  of 
blood,"  and  having  stood  for  nearly  "ten  years,"  we  have 
ahnost  "  wasted  our  living  "  in  trying  to  cure  it. 

It*  has  become,  during  eight  years  agitation,  very  compli- 
cated. One  Bishop  has  had  charge  of  one  side  of  the  ques- 
tion all  the  time,  wiiile  various  Conventions,  various  standing 
committees,  various  committees  of  conference,  various  self- 
constituted  letter-writers,  have  made  as  many  various  reports, 
as  many  various  proposals  and  as  many  various  concessions, 
all  with  and  without  formal  authority,  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
healing  the  breach.  During  all  of  which  time  the  Bishop, 
while  he  has  not  taken  even  one  short  step  towards  doing  what 
he,  the  Church  at  large,  and  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  all  knew 
he  should  have  done  has  been  treasuring  up  these  reports  and 
proposals  and  concessions,  and  is  now  using  them  as  they  were 
not  at  all  designed  to  be  used,  and  as  it  is  not  fan-  to  use  them 
for  a  cloak  and  defence  to  his  prolonged  absence  and  his  other 
steps  to  which  so  many  of  his  clerical  and  lay  friends  take 
exceptions. 

Now,  I  know  these  arc  hard  sayings.  I  know  what 
the  kind-hearted  ones  will  say.  My  mind's  ear  hears  the 
loyal  and  loving  sons  and  daughters  of  revered  Bishops  of 
other  Dioceses  exclaim:  "Oh,  that  is  too  severe;  that  is 
unfilial ;  how  can  he,  a  good  Churchman,  speak  thus  of  his 
Bishop  ?"  Ah,  my  friends,  you  look  through  a  glass  darkly. 
I  see  the  facts  face  to  face.  You  are,  as  I,  with  other  Church- 
men and  Churchwomen  of  this  Diocese,  were  once,  under  a 
Bishop  whose  coming  is  known  and  welcomed  by  your  whole 


THE    DIOCESE    OP    ILLINOIS.  9 

Parish  ;  who  comes  and  goes  as  one  of  your  own  ;  who,  when 
he  comes  ami  goes  does  not  travel  far,  especially  does  not  go 
to  his  home  in  another  Diocese  ;  who  does  not  think  that  a  final 
promise  to  take  up  bis  social  home  in  your  midst  all  that  is 
necessary  to  wipe  out,  what  his  people  think,  a  continued  wrong- 
doing of  nine  years  standing  ;  who  could  not  have  clone  any 
Buch  thing  even  if  a  technical  defence  could  have  been  made 
to  his  conduct ;  who  would  not  have  made  necessary  the 
enactment  of  a  Canon  never  dreamed  of  before  by  our  Eccle- 
siastical law-givers  ;  and  who  would  not,  after  the  passage  of 
such  law  have  lived  in  defiance  of  it  to  the  tightest  tension  of 
the  courtesy,  forbearance  and  shrinking  of  those  with  whom 
alone  rest  the  steps  to  be  taken  in  order  to  the  remedying  of 
this  evil.  These  things  have  been  done  by  our  Bishop  till  our 
whole  social-ecclesiastic  system  is  so  aggravated  and  dis- 
eased on  the  subject  that  any  irritation  is  likely  to  develop 
boils  and  blotches  which  must  mar  its  fair  beauty. 

Those  nine  years  have  gone.  And  while  our  Church-loving 
hearts  have  had  yearnings  for  some  work  in  which  to  engage 
in  our  Diocese,  and  our  Longings  have  been  goino;  forth  in  the 
dark,  stretching  themselves  out,  feeling  as  it  were  for  some- 
thing to  do,  so  that  we  might  play  "follow  leader"  in  those 
things  which  as  faithful  sons  and  daughters  of  the  Church  we 
know  to  be  our  privilege  to  do,  alas !  we  find  no  plans  laid 
for  us  by  our  head — no  leader  to  follow. 

And  I  argue  that,  falsics  in  uno,  falsus  in  omnibus,  holds  good 
here.  A  Bishop,  who  for  any  cause  (especially  the  alleged 
wrong-doings  of  his  Diocese  towards  him,  urged  as  I  will 
show,  after  he  had  given  other  excuses,)  will  for  nine  years 
absent  himself  from  the  field  of  labor,  to  which  he  was  called 
"  according  to  the  will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  will 
battle  demands,  resist  inducements,  skillfully  use  reasoning 
against  exhortations  to  duty,  and  maintain  his  grounds  against 
all,   trusting  to  the   natural  unwillingness   of  Churchmen   to 


10  BISHOP  WHITEHOUSE    AXD 

thrust  their  grievances  before  the  world  by  presenting  him  for 
.  trial,  will  do  other  wrongs  differing  only  in  kind,  not  in  degree  ; 
at  least  not  shrinking  from  those  of  equal  enormity. 

And  now,  what  justified  his  non-residence  ?     Nothing. 

The  lack  of  salary  Avas  not  the  reason.  He  expected  none  from 
the  Diocese  when  he  was  elected.  The  Diocese  was  not  pay- 
ing her  venerable  Bishop  Chase  at  the  time,  and,  of  course; 
could  promise  no  salary,  and  did  promise  none  to  the  assistant 
Bishop.  Before  he  was  consecrated,  he  arranged  with  Trinity 
Church,  Chicago,  for  his  salary — as  Rector.  Twenty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  a  year  (a  good  salary  at  that  time,)  were  to  be  paid 
him,  and  before  he  was  consecrated  he  was  elected  to  and 
accepted  the  Rectorship  of  that  Parish.  His  salary,  then,  was 
to  supply  what  he  knew  the  Diocese  could  not  furnish.  His 
scheme  there  failed.  His  Cathedral  plan  was  begiui  —  that 
failed.  But  these  plans  failed  because  that  Chicago  men, 
prompt,  active  and  generous,  soon  saw  that  some  second  thought 
was  at  work  in  the  Bishop's  mind,  and  that  these  means  were 
to  be  used  for  his  benefit,  and  not  as  they  designed  it  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Church  at  large.  They  repudiated  the  plans 
entered  into  because  delay  and  lack  of  good  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  Bishop  warned  them. 

Lack  of  a  dwelling-house  was  not  the  cause — at  least  failure 
on  the  part  of  the  Diocese  to  furnish  one  Avas  not  the  reason 
of  the  beginning  of  his  non-residence  or  the  assigned  ground 
of  the  delay  in  coming  here.  The  Diocese  would  have  been 
surprised  at  any  such  reason,  had  it  been  assigned,  as  in  the 
first  place  it  had  not  the  means  to  build  one,  and  in  the  next 
place  it  had  never  promised  one,  nor  had  the  Bishop  originally 
asked  one.  Bishop  Whitehouse  himself  bears  early  testimony 
to  the  truth  of  this,  as  in  December,  of  1852,  he  agrees  to  build 
for  himself  a  residence.  The  only  part  the  Diocese  Avas  to 
lake  in  it  Avas  to  lend  him  the  ground,  which,  under  a  plan 
begun  by  him  after  he  became  Bishop,  it  AATould  become  the 


THE   DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  11 

owner  of.  The  Diocese  agreeing  that  in  order  that  he  might  not 
jeopardize  the  money  he  invested  in  his  own  residence  on  its 
land,  he  could  temporarily  and  in  trust  take  the  title  in  his 
own  private  and  individual  name,  with  an  agreement  verbally 
made,  and  the  written  minutes  of  which  to  be  afterwards 
amplified,  were  drawn  up  by  E.  C.  Lamed,  Esq.,  that 
when  the  Diocese  would  refund  to  him  the  cost  of  the  dwelling 
he  would  convey  the  property  in  toto  to  the  Right  Reverend 
Henry  J.  Whitehouse,  Bishop  of  Illinois,  and  his  successors  in 
office. 

The  whole  transaction  there  shows  that  Bishop  Whitehouse 
at  first  contemplated  neither  salary  or  dwelling  as  conditions 
precedent,  or  as  duties  incumbent  on  the  Diocese  prior  to  his 
coming  into  it  to  live.  Hence  all  the  arguments  are,  in  my 
mind,  of  no  avail  towards  the  justification  of  the  beginning  of 
the  Bishop's  non-residence.  Of  course,  these  as  reasons  for 
his  continued  non-residence  are  worse  than  sand  foundations. 
The  original  being  baseless,  the  secondary  have  nothing  to  rest 
on.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  the  Bishop  began  to  non-reside, 
and  having  begun  it,  and  the  necessarily  consequent  evils  having 
grown  out  of  it,  he  continued  to  non-reside  and  the  evils  in- 
creased. Time  has  widened  the  breach — has  increased  the 
evils  and  made  concession  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  more 
difficult. 

It  rests  with  the  Bishop  now  at  this  late  day  to  remove  the 
exciting  cause  of  this  one  great  wrong.  This  he  promises 
now  to  do.  But  it  rests  wTith  an  overruling  Providence  to 
undo  the  harm  already  done  by  that  exciting  cause — that  pro- 
longed non-residence.  Of  the  many  advantages  lost  to  the 
Diocese  of  Illinois  by  the  non-residence  of  the  Bishop  no  due 
estimate  can  be  formed.  When  we  know  that  in  the  last 
decade  the  population  of  Illinois  has  gone  from  nine  hundred 
thousand  to  twice  that  number,  and  that  during  that  time  rail- 
roads and  improvements  of  various  kinds  have  developed  the 


12  BISHOP   WHITEII0USE   ANT) 


State  at  a  rate  and  to  a  degree  unprecedented,  that  towns  have 
sprung  into  existence,  and  now  numbers  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  people,  where  not  one  house  stood  in  1850;  and  that 
in  every  one  of  these  towns  the  Church  could  have  owned  free 
of  cost,  the  gift  of  the  proprietors,  a  site  for  a  Church  build- 
ing and  parsonage  had  the  same  degree  of  devotion  and  keen- 
ness been  used  by  our  Bishop  in  relation  to  these  matters,  that 
he  exercised  towards  others,  and  of  a  private  nature,  we  may 
imagine,  with  a  partial  degree  of  justice,  where  the  Church 
would  now  stand,  compared  with  what  she  does  show  to-day 
in  the  way  of  growth. 

Had  he  been  here  in  our  midst,  resident  among  us,  learning 
our  ways  and  seeing  our  movements ;  had  the  rule  been  that 
he  was  in  Illinois,  and  the  exception  that  he  was  in  New  York  ; 
had  his  name  appeared  in  the  Chicago  Record,  and  his  resi- 
dence in  Chicago  been  given  with  the  names  and  residences  of 
the  clergy  living  here,  and  had  there  been  no  occasion  for  the 
New  York  Churchman  in  giving  the  list  of  names  of  the 
clergy  residing  in  New  York  City  to  place  that  of  our  Bishop 
on  it  for  nine  years,  over  one-fourth  of  the  average  of  human 
life,  then  all  of  these  things  woidd  not  have  occurred  ;  results 
would  have  attended  the  ministrations  and  planningS  of  a  faith- 
ful and  zealous  Bishop,  which  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  now  can 
never  see.  No  matter  who  is  Bishop,  or  howsoever  faithfully 
he  may  work,  the  day  has  gone  by  for  those  results.  The  day 
isin  store,  however,  for  great  ones  yet ;  and  Christ's  promise  to 
his  Church  is  too  reliable  to  admit  of  our  despairing.  "We 
have  a  great  field  socially,  politically  and  ecclesiastically  in  the 
Diocese  of  Illinois. 

Nor  must  it  be  said — But  why  rub  this  sore  any  longer? 
The  Bishop  is  now  coming,  and  why  not  let  the  matter  drop 
here  and  let  us  have  peace?  This,  to  a  certain  extent,  is  true 
reasoning,  and  is  good  Christian  advice.  But  must  the  wrong 
be  done  us,  ami  we  be  "thrust  out  privily?"     Who  was  a 


THE   DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  13 

Roman  citizen  and  demanded  his  proper  and  just  discharge  V 
We,  too,  are  Roman  citizens,  and  like  our  example  in  this  par- 
ticular, we  demand  a  proper  release.  The  escutcheon  of  the 
Diocese  does  not  stand  untarnished  before  the  world,  her  Bishop 
having  laid  serious  short-comings  to  her  charge,  and  I,  for  one, 
will  not  rest  till  I  have  shown  to  the  Church  at  large  that  the 
Diocese  of  Illinois  has  never  been  unfilial  to  her  Bishop,  or 
lacking  in  loyalty  to  him  so  long  as,  and  wherever  he  deserved 
it.  Pie  has  had  it  to  the  fullest  measure  of  his  claim.  More- 
over a  sore  healed  over  is  not  gone ;  a  hollow  peace  is  not  per- 
manent ;  a  temporary  bridge  is  not  reliable.  The  promise,  or 
even  the  fulfilment  of  that  promise,  to  come  and  reside  is  not 
like  charity.  It  cannot  cover  a  multitude  of  sins.  Experience, 
the  lamp  that  guides  our  feet,  must  not  be  ignored  by 
us,  and  we  must  profit  by  the  past.  From  this  great 
wrong  we  must  be  prepared  for  the  correctness  of  the 
view  of  many  of  the  best  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Diocese 
relative  to  the  other  great  wrong  which  we  think  the  Bishop 
has  done  regarding  the  six  thousand  dollars. 

We  will,  therefore,  now  look  into  that  matter,  and  the  inci- 
dents connected  with  its  history,  the  documents  and  letters 
relating  to  the  transaction  from  its  conception  to  its  birth,  and 
up  to  its  strangulation  and  inglorious  issue.  After  that  we  will 
turn  our  attention  to  the  fact  of  the  Bishop  appending  to  the 
journal  of  the  late  Convention  documents,  not  part  of  nor  rela- 
ting to  the  business  of  the  same,  among  which  we  find  one, 
the  publication  of  which — even  were  the  charges  in  it  true — 
is  a  most  unchristian  and  unbishop-like  act — heralding  to  the 
world  the  remissness  of  a  part  of  his  sons — but  which  being 
untrue,  makes  the  publication  libelous  and  wholly  unpardonable. 

"We  may  have  occasion  to  touch  upon  the  "  corporator 
sole  "  enactment,  and  show  how  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  should 
not  have  her  Bishop  hold  titles  to  and  deal  in  real  estate,  when 
the  Illinois  State  Legislature  clearly  did  not  intend  he  should 


14  BISHOP   WHITEIIOUSE    AMD 

do  so,  and  as  that  Legislature  did  not  design  making  him  an 
Incorporated  Land  Company. 

And,  as  this  pamphlet  is  the  work  of  an  individual  and  not 
of  a  body  of  men,  I  beg  that  the  facts  and  the  truth  of  what  I 
say  may  be  properly  regarded,  well  weighed,  and  not  dispa- 
raged at  all  by  what  may  seem  like  harshness  to  those  who 
dislike  "plain  English,"  and  who  prefer  that  mild  style  of  lan- 
guage which  sometimes  fails  to  convey  fully  all  that  is  intended 
to  be  said.  If  what  I  say  is  trice,  and  the  arguments  I  may 
use  are  well-founded,  if  the  documents  I  publish  and  the  infer- 
ences we  draw  from  them  are  conclusive,  let  justice  prevail,  no 
matter  that  its  enunciation  may  be  made  in  a  manner  perhaps 
too  plain  for  the  tender  and  loving  hearts  which  are  accus- 
tomed to  constant  association  with  their  paternal  ecclesi- 
astic rulers,  and  who  cannot  appreciate  the  searing  effect  of 
the  incessant  and  ever-changing  ground  of  complaint  which 
the  Churchmen  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  Clergy  and  Laity, 
High  Church  and  Low  Church,  Pastoral  Aid  and  anti-Pastoral 
Aid,  Cathedral  and  anti-Cathedral,  Residence  and  non-Resi- 
dence, Communicants  and  non-Communicants,  all  think  they 
have  against  Bishop  Whitehouse.  If  the  Bishop  is  right  and 
these  men  are  wrong,  it  shows  a  most  anomalous  condition  of 
things — one  man  right  and  a  whole  community  wrong. 

And  if  all  that  is  said  be  construed  into  a  desire  to  wage  war 
against  our  Bishop,  it  of  course  is  admissible  to  ask :  Why  do 
all  shades  of  Churchmanship  unite  in  thinking  him  wrong  ? 
Why  do  Clergy  and  Laity  join  hands  in  attempting  to  undo 
wrongs  which  they  consider  done?  Why  do  communicants 
link  with  non-communicants?  Why  do  those  in  the  Church 
agree  with  those  out  of  the  Church,  and  why  are  professing 
Christians  compelled  to  agree  with  non-professing  Christians, 
but  high-toned  business  men,  that  the  transactions  of  the  Bishop 
are  not  defensible  according  to  business  standards  ? 


THE    DIOCESE    OF    ILLINOIS.  15 

THE      CATHEDRAL      LOT,     THE      RESIDENCE      LOT      AND      THE     SIX 
THOUSAND      DOLLAR     MATTER. 

That  Bishop  Whitehouse  had  authority  to  convey  to  Mr. 
Beers  the  Cathedral  lot  no  one  questions.  He  held  it  as  Trus- 
tee of  the  Diocese,  no  conditions  being  expressedly  appended 
to  the  trust.  The  Diocese  by  her  Convention,  after  his  hesita- 
tion to  convey  without  her  consent,  had  given  him  such  per- 
mission to  re-convey  as  would  cover  any  question  regarding  his 
authority  to  do  so.  Such  authority  was  not  used  at  the  time  it 
was  given,  but  the  Bishop  quotes  it  plausibly  as  a  sanction  to 
his  subsequent  action  in  the  final  conveyance  to  Mr.  Beers. 
The  essence  of  wrong  in  the  matter  consisted  not  in  his  re-con- 
veyance of  the  lot,  but  in  his  taking  from  Mr.  Beers  money 
for  that,  to  which  no  one  but  Mr.  Beers  had  any  equitable  title 
or  claim.  The  Diocese  had  none,  for  the  gentlemen  who  pro- 
posed to  present  to  it  a  lot  for  a  Cathedral  Church  refused  to 
pay  for  it,  and  hence  the  deed  which  Mr.  Beers  had  made  on 
the  good  faith  of  the  subscriptions  and  of  the  Itishojfs  assu- 
rance that  no  abuse  should  be  allowed  of  the  confidence 
reposed  in  him  by  Mr.  Beers,  was  obtained  without  considera- 
tion, and  should  have  been  cancelled  at  once.  The  individuals 
who  subscribed  had  no  claim  to  the  property,  for  they  failed 
utterly  to  comply  with  their  part  of  the  contract  in  paying  for 
it.  The  Bishop  had  no  claim  to  it,  either  privately  or  officially, 
as  it  was  never  intended  (as  the  subscription  paper,  now  for 
the  first  time  given  to  the  public,  will  show,)  that  he  should 
have  any  individual  interest  in  it,  and  of  course  his  official 
interest  was  limited  by  that  of  the  Diocese.  The  latter  having 
none,  both  by  reason  of  the  failure  of  the  consideration,  and 
by  reason  of  the  Bishop's  failure,  as  JBishop,  to  erect  on  the 
lot  the  Cathedral  Church  according  to  the  verbal  agreement, 
as  certified  to  by  all  the  original  contributors,  not  within  ten 
years,  but  at  once.  Hence,  it  is  claimed  that  Mr.  Beers  should 
have  received  the  Cathedral  lot  back,  of  course  paying  nothing 
for  the  re-conveyance,  all  considerations  having  failed  him. 


16  BISHOP   WHITEIIOUSE    AND 

With  regard  to  the  residence  lot,  its  plain  history  will  show 
that  privately  the  Bishop  had  no  claim  to  it  at  all,  and  that 
officially  not  even  the  semblance  of  a  claim,  which  he  had 
acquired  to  the  Cathedral  lot  by  reason  of  the  deed  which  Mr. 
Beers  had  confidingly  made  to  him,  attached  to  it.  He  never 
did  hold  any  paper  at  all  relative  to  the  residence  lot,  much 
less  one  that  gave  him  any  shadoto  of  title  to  it  either  officially 
or  privately.  Hence  there  was  no  need  of,  and  Mr.  Beers 
neither  asked  or  desired  any  re-conveyance  or  release  of  it 
from  Bishop  or  Henry  J.  "VYhitehouse. 

Now,  of  the  truth  of  these  statements  all  may  judge  from 
the  following  history,  documents  and  comments. 

I  can  best  open  the  history  of  the  matter  by  giving  a  copy  of 
the  original  subscription  paper.  The  italics  and  capitals  are 
of  course  my  own. 

And  right  here  I. wish  to  state  that  this  paper  is  the  key  to 
the  whole  history  of  the  matter.  It  shews  the  plan,  the  inten- 
tion of  the  contributors,  the  amount  to  be  paid,  who  were  to 
pay  it,  and  what  they  designed  paying  it  foi\ 

And  at  the  portal  of  this  history,  I  wish  the  fact  to  be  made 
known,  that  when  the  deed  was  made  to  Mr.  Beers,  and  a  sep- 
arate paper  with  regard  to  the  residence  lot  was  drawn  up — 
merely  for  convenience  sake  ;  not  supplanting  or  annuling,  but 
only  springing  out  of  this  original  paper — this  original  paper, 
this  hey  disappeared  ami  never  could  be  found.  It,  the  basis 
of  the  whole  transaction  ;  it,  the  interpreter  of  the  intention  of 
the  donors  ;  it,  the  patent  from  wliich  might  be  gained  the  in- 
formation on  which  Committees  and  Conventions  could  reliably 
make  reports  and  trace  titles,  and  tell  whose  "were  the  avails 
of  sales  or  compromises,"  never  could  be  found,  and  these  re- 
ports, these  declarations  of  titles,  these  defending  documents, 
which  the  Bishop  has  been  treasuring  up  so  carefully,  were  all 
made   as  the   Report  of  the  Convention  of  1855,  was  made 


THE    DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  17 

("  after  the  reading  and  withdrawal  of  the  prepared  report,") 
"on  conference  icith  the  B ' is/top." 

And  I  wish  to  state  right  here,  that,  had  these  standing  com- 
mittees, these  conventions  had  this  paper  and  others  winch  I 
will  now  publish,  they  would  never  have  been  led  to  make  the 
statements  they  did.  Had  they  seen  the  original  subscription 
list,  they  would  have  known  that  the  whole  twelve  thousand 
dollars  were  designed  for  the  benefit  of  the  Diocese — no  part 
for  Bishop  Whitehouse  individually  or  privately. 

Had  they  seen  the  supplemental  subscription  paper  they 
would  have  known  that  the  Bishop  was  not  to  receive  a  gift, 
and  the  report  of  1855  could  not  have  said,  as  it  does,  that 
"the  residence  lot  was  intended  to  be  purchased  and  presented 
to  Bishop  Whitehouse."  Had  they  seen  his  letter  to  Mr.  Beers, 
of  January  17,  1854,  they  would  have  known  that  Bishop 
Whitehouse  did  not  then  think  he  had  a  "contract  for  a  deed" 
of  the  residence  lot,  and  the  Standing  Committee  of  1856, 
would  not  have  advised  him  to  "  proceed  if  necessary  to  en- 
force performance  of  the  conti'act  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beers." 

In  fine,  had  these  papers  not  been  secreted,  and  had  not  these 
reports  been  made  only  after  "  conference  with  the  Bishop," 
there  woidd  not  now  be  any  necessity  to  explain  documents 
which  have  gone  to  the  world  from  too  great  trust  in  the 
Bishop's  history  of  matters,  and  from  too  great  a  desire  to  heal 
breaches.  And  I  wish  to  be  distinctly  understood :  These  re- 
ports and  recomendations,  and  interpretrations,  and  decisions, 
were  made  on  statements  of  the  Bishop — after  "  conference  " 
with  him — without  the  documents  we  now  have,  and  without 
any  information  derived  from  the  original  subscribers,  and 
hence  must  not  be  taken  at  all  in  the  face  of  these  documents, 
or  against  the  truth,  as  shewn  by  them.  We  must  now,  with- 
out the  aid  of  standing  committees,  or  the  explanations  given 
us  in  "  conference  "  with  the  Bishop,  judge  for  ourselves  from 
these  papers. 


BISHOP    WIIITEIIOrSE    AND 


THE    ORIGINAL    SUBSCRIPTION    PAPER. 

"  The  undersigned  respectively  agree  to  give  the  sums  set 
opposite  to  their  respective  names,  for  the  purpose  of  purchas- 
ing lots  No.  2  and  3  in  block  8,  fractional  section  15,  at  the 
sum  of  twelve  thousand  dollars ;  lot  two  for  the  purpose  of 
erecting  thereon  a  Cathedral  Church,  and  lot  three  for  a  residence 
for  the  Hishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois.  The  amount  to  be 
paid,  one,  two  and  three  years  after  the  purchase,  with  6  per 
cent,  interest. 

"  It  is  understood  that  above  donations  are  made  upon  the 
condition  that  the  subscribers  hereto  shall  not  be  called  upon 
for  any  future  subscriptions,  and  under  the  expectation  that 
the  Bishop  will  be  enabled  to  raise  from  abroad  the  funds  re- 
quired for  the  erection  of  the  Church  edifice." 

Chicago,  Dec.  1,  1852. 

C.  Beers, $2,000 

J.  F.  Ryerson, 1,000 

Wm.  Blair, 1,000 

Jas.  Morgan, 1,000 

E.  C.  Lamed 500 

D.  Rutler, 500 

J.  M.  Wilson, 500 

R.  F.  Hadduck, 50o 

D.  J.  Elv, 500 

L.  F.  Billiard, 500 

W.  H.  Adams, 250 

J.  A.  Basset, 250 

E.  L.  Sherman, 250 

D.  O.  Bradley, 250 

A.  Gibbs, 150 

G.  W.  Lay, 100 

G.  Bodges, 100 

Thos.  Bale, 100 

Thomas  Allen, 1 00 

Together, f9,55Q 

It  needs  no  comment  here  to  show  that  the  subscribers  in- 
tended the  whole  property  for  the  benefit  of  the  Diocese  ex- 
clusively— "  lot  two  (2)  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  thereon  a 
Cathedral  Church,  and  lot  three  (3),  for  a  residence  for  the 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois." 

The  closing  sentence  of  this  subscription  paper,  my  readers 


THE   DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  19 

will  perceive  made  it  the  duty  of  the  Bishop  to  "  raise  from 
abroad  the  funds  required  for  the  erection  of  the  Church  Edi- 
fice," and  hence  he  asked  Mr.  Beers  to  make  him  a  deed  of  the 
Cathedral  lot,  so  that  he  could  lay  the  matter  before  his  friends 
at  the  East,  and  raise  the  funds  there.  Mr.  Beers  here  protest- 
ed against  making  the  deed,  and  closing  up  one  part  of  the 
business,  leaving  the  other  part,  the  residence  lot,  unclosed. 
He  also  protested  against  any  variance  from  the  usual  custom 
of  taking  mortgages  on  the  property  as  security  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  purchase  money  remaining  unpaid.  To  both  of 
these  objections  the  Bishop  urged  as  follows : 

First. — The  whole  transaction  was  one,  and  he  would  com- 
plete the  $12,000  by  his  subscribing  the  deficit,  with  the  condi- 
tion that  he  might  substitute  other  names  for  the  whole  or  for 
a  part  of  his  subscription.  Any  part,  however,  for  which  he 
did  not  furnish  other  names,  was  to  stand  as  an  "  encumbrance 
on  the  other  lot."  He  thus,  it  will  be  perceived,  not  giving  any 
thing  toward  the  fund,  but  merely  borrowing  of  Mr.  Beers  on 
the  property  of  the  Diocese  the  amount  of  the  deficit. 

Secoistd. — The  Bishop  said  that  unless  he  had  a  clear  deed 
he  could  not  "  raise  the  funds  from  abroad,"  and  that  the  pro- 
ject would  succeed  or  fail  at  once,  and  hence  though  (con- 
trary to  the  direct  wishes  of  Mr.  Beers,)  the  deed  gave  ten 
years,  the  success  of  the  project  would  not  stand  so  long  unde- 
cided, and  if  it  failed  he  would,  acting  as  it  were  as  Mr.  Beers' 
trustee  in  the  matter,  deed  the  lot  back.  This  agreement  was 
clear  according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Larned,  who  was  the 
unbiased  attorney  of  both  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Beers. 

The  consideration  mentioned  in  the  deed  is  $4,000,  this 
with  Mr.  Beers'  subscription  of  $2,000  (to  which  Bishop 
Whitehouse  alludes  in  a  letter  of  which  I  will  give  a  copy 
in  this  pamphlet,)  makes  the  sum  of  six  thousand  dollars, 
one  half  of  the  original  purchase  money  intended  to  be  raised 
by  subscription. 


20  BISHOP    AVIIITEHOUSE    AMD 

Six  thousand  dollars  of  the  nine  thousand,  five  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars  subscriptions  to  the  whole  fund  were  thus  applied 
to  the  Cathedral  lot — and  the  following  paper  being  a  list  of 
the  subscribers  for  the  residue  of  the  funds,  to  wit : — 63,550 — 
was  made  with  a  view  to  raising  the  other  six  thousand  for  the 
residence  lot. 

SUBSCTIIPTIOX    LIST    NO.    2. 

"In  consideration  of  the  sum  of  86,000  to  be  paid  in  1,  2, 
and  3  years  after  date,  with  interest  at  6  per  cent.,  by  the  par- 
ties hereinafter  named,  who  are  to  give  me  their  judgment 
notes  therefor,  said  notes  to  bear  date  the  1st  day  of  Dec,  1852, 
and  to  be  of  the  respective  amounts  set  opposite  their  respective 
names,  and  payable  as  hereinafter  mentioned ;  I  agree  to  execute 
and  deliver  to  Henry  J.  Whitehouse  a  deed  of  lot  3  in  block  8, 
fractional  section  15  addition  to  Chicago,  upon  condition  that 
the*  said  Whitehouse  erect  thereon  a  residence  for  himself,  the 
said  lot  and  house  thereon  erected,  to  be  subject  to  an  agree- 
ment for  a  conveyance  from  said  Whitehouse  to  Henry  J. 
Whitehouse,  Bishop  of  Illinois,  which  is  to  be  hereafter  exe- 
cuted, and  the  minutes  of  which  in  substance  have  been  drawn 
up,  and  are  now  in  the  possession  of  E.  C.  Earned,  Esq.  The 
sums  herein  referred  to  which  are  to  be  paid  in  1,  2,  and  3 
years,  as  above  stated,  are  as  follows : 

Chicago,  Dec.  1,  1852. 


E.  C.  Lamed, 

J.  M.  Wilson, 500 

B.  F.  Hadduck, 500 

M.  C.   Stearnes, 500 

W.  H.  Adams, 250 

J.  A.  Bassett, 250 

E.  L.  Sherman, 250 

D.  0.  Bradley, 250 

Dr.  A.  Gibbs, 150 

G.  W.  Lay,  Jr., 100 

G.  Hodges, 100 

Thomas  Hale, ! 100 

Thomas  Allen, 100 

3,550 
H.  J.  Whitehouse,  secured  by  bond  and  mortgage  on  property.  .2,450 

$6,000 


THE    DIOCESE    OF    ILLINOIS.  21 

Provided  that,  instead  of  the  last  named  security,  the  notes 
of  other  responsible  parties  may  be  substituted  at  any  time  be- 
fore the  execution  of  the  deed.  The  Deed  to  be  given  on  the  de- 
livery to  said  Beers  of  the  securities  for  the  amount  above  pro- 
vided for. 
In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto,  the  1st  day  of  December, 

A.  D.,  1852.  (Signed)   Cyrenius  Beers,  [Seal.] 

In  witness  whereof,  E.  C.  Laexed. 

It  diners  somewhat  from  the  original  paper,  and  contem- 
plates the  Bishop's  taking  the  title  to  the  residence  lot  in  his 
own  private  name,  with,  at  the  same  time,  a  qualifying  contract 
back  from  him.  lie  was  to  take  the  title  in  his  own  name,  be- 
cause the  gentlemen  who  subscribed  told  him,  that  the  Diocese 
could  not  then  build  a  house  for  her  Bishop,  and  he  proposed 
to  build  one  for  himself  on  the  property  of  the  Diocese,  now 
intended  to  be  presented  to  it  by  these  gentlemen. 

The  contract  back  was  to  provide  for  the  conveyance  of  the 
residence  lot  by  Henry  J.  Whitehouse  to  the  Rt.  Rev'd.  Henry 
J.  Whitehouse,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  and  his  suc- 
cessors in  office,  at  any  time  within  ten  years,  provided  the 
Diocese  would  refund  to  him  the  cost  of  the  dwelling  and  in- 
terest. This,  as  a  matter  of  course,  as  the  gentlemen  who  were 
to  pay  the  $6,000  did  not  design  making  to  Henry  J.  White- 
house  a  present  of  the  lot.  They  designed  giving  to  the  Dio- 
cese of  Illinois  a  lot  for  an  Episcopal  Residence,  and  to  let 
Bishop  Whitehouse  have  the  use  of  the  same,  if  he  would,  as 
it  were,  lend  the  Diocese  the  money  with  which  to  build  the 
house ;  of  course  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  Bishop's  sub- 
scription was  in  no  danger  of  going  to  the  Diocese,  he  losing 
it.  He  was  to  make  a  bond  and  secure  it  by  mortgage  on  pro- 
perty, which,  though  really  belonging  to  the  Diocese,  he  was  to 
hold  in  his  own  name  till  the  Diocese  should  repay  him  the 

cost  of  the  dwelling  and  interest,  at  which  time  he  was  to 

3 


22  BISHOP   WHITEHOUSE    AND 

convey  the  property  to  the  Bishop  of  Illinois.  But  of  course  he 
would  convey  it,  subject  to  the  encumbrance,  and  the  Diocese 
would  have  to  pay  the  $2,450,  in  order  to  have  a  clear  title. 
And  if  the  Diocese  did  not  within  ten  years  redeem  the  lot  by 
repaying  to  Bishop  Whitehouse  the  cost  of  the  dwelling,  he 
would  become  absolute  owner  of  the  lot,  at  a  cost  of  §2,450. 

This  supplemental  subscription  list  was  in  truth  only  the  re- 
sult of  an  arbitrary  separating  or  setting  apart  of  certain  names 
to  the  purchase  of  the  Cathedral  lot,  that  the  Bishop  might 
have  his  clear  deed  of  it,  and  the  placing  the  names  of  the  res- 
idue as  the  beginning  of  the  list  of  residence  lot  purchasers ; 
the  whole  transaction,  however,  being  an  unit,  and  some  of 
the  subscribers  at  the  time  objecting  to  the  dividing  of  the 
matter,  but  Mr.  Larned  assuming  the  authority  to  make  the 
division,  and  doing  it  of  his  own  motion. 

This  paper,  signed  by  Mr.  Beers,  was  placed  in  escrow,  in 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Larned,  till  he  should  receive  and  hand  to 
Mr.  Beers  the  securities  of  the  subscriptions,  to  wit : — The 
judgment  notes  of  the  subscribers,  and  the  bond  of  Bishop 
Whitehouse,  and  his  mortgage  covering  the  said  bond. 

A  year  passed ;  the  one  year  notes,  if  given,  would  have 
been  due ;  but  not  only  was  there  no  money  paid,  but  only 
a  portion  of  the  notes  were  given.  Bishop  Whitehouse's  bond, 
and  the  security  required  by  the  contract  was  not  given. 
Hence,  sometime  after  the  lapse  of  the  year,  the  equitable  limit 
of  the  escrow  being  reached,  Mr.  Larned,  acting  under  the  ad- 
vice of  Hon.  John  M.  Wilson,  returned  to  Mr.  Beers  the  con- 
tract. 

During  the  time  the  paper  was,  with  the  minutes  of  the  coun- 
ter contract,  and  other  papers  relating  to  the  matter,  in  the 
hands  of  Mr.  Larned  in  escrow,  the  Bishop  asked  permission 
to  examine  the  papers  relating  to  the  business.  Mr.  Larned 
thinks  he  sent  all  of  them  to  the  Bishop.  The  contract  being 
the  most  important  paper  was  especially  remembered  by  Mr. 


Till:    DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  23 

Lamed,  audit  not  being  returned,  and  failing  to  be  returned 
at  Mr.  Larned's  request,  he  wrote  to  the  Bishop  explicitly,  de- 
manding its  return,  trusting  that  it  would  not  be  necessary  for 
him  to  institute  proceedings  to  recover  it.  Mr.  Lamed,  unfor- 
tunately, has  no  copy  of  this  letter.  The  Bishop,  doubtless, 
has  the  original,  and  if  I  am  at  fault,  I  Avill  esteem  it  a  favor  if 
he  Avill  refer  to  the  document  and  correct  me.  The  paper 
came,  and  was  returned  to  Mr.  Beers. 

This  was  the  only  way  in  which  the  Bishop  ever  "  held  a 
contract  for  the  residence  lot."  Would  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee now  advise  the  Bishop  to  ask  a  specific  performance  of 
that  contract  from  Mr.  Beers  '? 

The  minutes  of  the  contract  to  be  drawn  back,  I  cannot 
furnish  to  the  world,  as  I  promised  I  would,  as  Mr.  Lamed 
thinks  it,  the  orginal  subscription  list,  and  others  went  with 
the  papers  to  the  Bishop,  and  that  he  never  got  back  any  but 
the  contract.  Of  this  he  is  not  sure ;  the  Bishop,  hoAvever,  can 
inform  us  with  regard  to  this.  But  it  is  of  no  great  import- 
ance, as  the  fact  that  such  a  paper  Avas  to  be  made,  and 
its  purport,  are  both  evidenced  by  the  supplemental  paper 
itself. 

Now,  on  the  Cathedral  lot,  Mr.  Beers  did,  I  believe,  receive 
the  notes  for  $4,000.  But  before  December  of  1853,  the  time 
at  which  the  first  notes  Avere  to  fall  clue,  some  of  the  makers 
informed  Mr.  Beers  that  they  would  not  pay  them,  the  Bishop 
not  having  raised  any  funds,  with  which  to  carry  out  his  plan 
of  a  church,  as  he  had  agreed  to  do. 

This  Avas  in  December  of  1S53,  or  thereabouts.  A  meetino- 
of  the  makers  of  the  Cathedral  notes  was  held,  and  Bishop 
Whitehouse  had  an  interview  Avith  them.  He  told  them  that 
Chicago  would  haA'e  to  raise  $30,000  toward  the  building  of 
the  Church.  To  this  the  gentlemen  with  much  surprise  ob- 
jected, on  the  ground  that  the  original  subscription  stipulated 
that  the  Bishop  Avas  to  raise  the  funds  from  abroad.    The  Bishop 


24  BISHOP   WHITEHOUSE    AXD 


differed  with  them  on  this  point,  and  told  them  that  such  was 
not  the  case.     But  the  paper  could  no  where  be  found. 

The  deed  of  the  Cathedral  lot  had  been  given,  and  the  supple- 
mental subscription  paper,  relating  to  the  residence  lot,  was  in 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Earned,  so  that  the  original  paper  was  over- 
looked. It  could  at  that  time  be  found  no  where,  and  it  never 
was  found  till  the  21st  day  of  June,  A.  D.,  1860,  when  Mr.  Beers 
espied  it  among  the  papers  of  the  Bishop,  lying  on  the  table, 
when  they  were  all  in  the  Attorney's  office,  finally  adjusting  the 
matter  of  re-conveyance.  Mr  Beers  did  not  think  himself  enti- 
tled to  the  paper  itself,  but  he  did  take  a  copy  of  it,  and  I  now 
have  given  it  to  the  world.  Mr.  Larned  thinks  the  Bishop  got 
it  with  the  other  papers  years  since. 

If  the  copy  which  I  have  given  hereinbefore  is  not  a  correct 
one,  I  will  be  obliged  to  Bishop  Whitehouse,  if  he  will  produce 
the  original  and  show  wherein  the  copy  I  have  is  wrong. 

The  gentlemen,  however,  I  am  informed,  declined  raising  the 
$30,000,  and  the  Bishop  went  home  to  New  York.  Some  of 
the  notes  on  the  residence  lot,  including  "  the  bond  of  It.  J. 
Whitehouse  for  $2,450,"  were  never  signed,  nor  were  the 
security  and  the  agreement  for  re-conveyance  required  by  that 
contract  ever  executed,  and  hence  were  never  delivered  to  Mr. 
Beers.  So  that  "  the  deed  to  be  given  on  the  delivery  to  said 
Beers  of  the  security  for  the  amount  above  provided  for"  was 
never  given  as  the  securities  were  never  made,  and  of  course 
there  was  no  "  delivery." 

And  there  is  the  ground  on  which  Bishop  Whitehouse  sets 
up  his  official  and  private  personal  claim  to  the  real  estate,  and 
for  a  re-conveyance  of  which  he  demanded  and  obtained  the 
sum  of  six  thousand  dollars. 

Noav,  then,  the  Cathedral.  Church  was  never  built,  so  that 
the  lot,  according  to  the  verbal  compact,  should  already  have 
reverted  to  Mr.  Beers  ;  and  by  the  express  terms  of  the  deed 


THE    DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  25 

two  years  and  eight  months  more  would  have  caused  a  rever- 
sion if  the  church  had  not  been  built. 

The  spirit  of  the  compact  regarding  the  Cathedral  lot  was 
violated  wholly  and  entirely.  The  spirit,  letter  and  whatever 
else  there  was  of  compact  regarding  the  residence  lot  was  dis- 
regarded in  toto,  and  hence  no  claim  legal  or  equitable  rested 
on  the  property  in  favor  of  the  Bishop  personally  or  officially. 
So  that  in  no  wise  had  he  any  claim  to  the  property ;  nor  had  he 
any  right  to  ask  money  for  his  re-conveyance  of  that  which  he 
had  not  in  good  faith  obtained,  namely  the  title  to  the  Cathe- 
dral lot ;  nor  had  he  any  partnership  interest  in  the  profits  as  he 
declared  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pratt  he  had. 

But  did  the  Bishop  fully  intend  building  the  Church?  Did 
his  re-conveyance  derange  his  plans  very  much?  Bead  part 
of  his  address  to  the  late  Diocesan  Convention — see  one  of  the 
reasons  which  moved  him  to  sell  and  take  the  $6,000  ;  "  and 
aware  that  in  the  lapse  of  time,  and  the  rapid  changes  of  the 
city,  the  expediency  of  occupying  that  particular  site  for  a 
Bishop's  Church  had  materially  changed.  *  *  *  *  I 
deemed  it  expedient  to  accept  the  terms." 

Why  then  "  make  a  gain  "  of  the  desire  which  the  subscri- 
bers had  entertained  seven  years  before,  and  which  they  in 
March,  1854 — not  note  in  1860 — told  the  Bishop  had  led  them 
to  subscribe,  but  which  desire  was  then  disappointed. 

Bishop  Whitehouse,  I  say,  went  home  to  New  York.  We 
hear  from  him  January  17th,  1854,  one  month  and  a  half  after 
the  maturity  of  the  first  set  of  notes.  He  writes  thus  to  Mr. 
Beers.  And  now  mark  this  letter — see  "  the  nature  of  the 
man,"  as  evinced  in  it.  See  how  he,  willing  to  contemplate 
a  reversion  of  the  Cathedral  lot  and  a  failure  to  give  the  indi- 
viduals the  Church,  for  the  building  of  which  he  agreed  to  find 
the  funds,  still  aims  to  "  make  a  gain  "  to  himself  out  of  a  part 
of  the  general  plan. 


20  BISHOP    WH1TEHOTJSE    AXD 

New  York,  January  17th,  1854. 

Dear  Sir: — I  have  not  heard  of  the  payments  having  been  made  to  you 
since  I  left  Chicago,  on  the  lots.  If  none  have  been  made,  I  beg  to  renew 
my  offer  of  personal  purchase  of  the  south  lot  at  $6,000.  The  terms  I  then 
proposed  were  $2,000  cash,  the  residue  bond  and  mortgage  in  Ohio  assigned, 
payable  in  one,  two  and  three  years  at  six  per  cent,  interest. 

By  this  plan  I  shall  be  in  possession  of  my  own  ground  for  building,  and 
the  concentration  of  the  subscriptions  on  the  Church  lot  will  probably  pay  for 
that,  and  allow  the  withdrawal  of  any  who  may  think  they  have  cause  to 
recede.  Your  own  donation  of  $2,000  will  be  refunded,  and  if  there  should 
be  a  failure  in  building  the  Church  that  lot  will  revert  to  you,  and  its  increased 
value  permit  the  re-payment  to  the  contributors  of  principal  and  interest  paid 
by  them. 

This  appears,  after  all  my  reflection,  to  be  the  safe  and  equitable  course,  the 
moderate  rate  at  which  I  shall  buy  the  lot  is  only  about  the  same  I  could  have 
obtained  a  similar  one  for  when  I  first  contemplated  building. 
Faithfully  your  obliged  friend  and  servant, 

(Signed)    '  HENRY  J.  WHITEHOUSE. 

Cyrenius  Beers,  Esq. 

Now,  if  you  have  read  the  foregoing  letter  carefully,  and 
have  seen  all  its  meaning,  its  force,  and  its  hearing,  you  will 
note  what  view  Bishop  Whitehouse  took  of  the  matter  upwards 
of  a  year  after  the  subscription  list  was  dated,  and  eleven 
months  after  he  had  received  the  deed  of  the  Cathedral  lot, 
and  you  will  also  detect  the  anxiety  he  entertained  to  get  a 
private  hold  of  the  residence  lot,  and  to  make  a  good  bargain 
for  himself. 

In  this  letter,  it  will  be  scon,  he  makes  a  proposal  of  a  private 
personal  purchase  of  the  residence  lot, — (it  was  not  then  a  gift  to 
him) — the  amount  of  the  consideration  being  $6,000;  for  which 
$2,000  should  be  cash  and  $4,000  in  Ohio  bond  and  mortgage. 
Then  see  how  he  proposes  to  concentrate  the  notes  offered  by 
the  purchasers  of  the  two  lots  on  to  the  one,  (the  Cathedral  lot,) 
thereby  allowing  a  margin  to  cover  the  deficit  arising  from  the 
defection,  then  anticipated,  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  con- 
tributors ;  hoping  that  at  least  $6,000  from  the  two  lists  would 
be  collected. 

Then  see  how  he  suggests  to  Mr.  Beers  that  by  this  arrange- 
ment he  (Mr.  Beers)  would  gain  $2,000  by  the  operation,  as 


THE   DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  27 

his  subscription  of  that  amount  should  be  refunded  to  him. 
See  how  he  still  further  argues,  that  if  the  Cathedral  is  not  built 
and  the  Cathedral  lot  should  revert,  the  rise  in  value  on  that  lot 
alone  would  enable  Mr.  Beers  to  refund  to  any  who  had  met 
all  or  any  part  of  their  obligations,  at  the  time  of  such  default, 
the  money  they  had  paid  and  interest,  thereby  shewing  that  he 
contemplated  a  possible  failure  to  build  the  church,  and  in  con- 
sequence a  simple  reversion,  in  case  of  default  in  building,  and 
without  pay  for  the  rise  in  the  value  of  the  property,  or  any 
partnership  share  of  such  enhancement;  the  repayment  of  the 
instalments  met  by  the  subscribers  being  alone  contemplated. 

Then  see  how  he  argues  that  the  low  price  (the  property  at 
the  date  of  the  letter  had  risen  in  value  very  greatly,)  at  which 
he  would  thus  individually  purchase  the  lot  would  be  none  too 
moderate,  as  he  could  originally  have  purchased  a  similar  lot 
for  that  price ;  when  he  knows,  and  the  world  knows,  that  he 
did  not  dream  of  purchasing  one  then  for  his  own  use  and  with 
his  own  funds,  and  when  he  knows  that  had  the  property  fallen 
in  value  Mr.  Beers  would  have  had  no  claim  on  him  for  the 
price  or  any  part  of  it,  if  he  had  chosen  not  to  take  it. 

It  requires  only  a  word  here  in  passing  to  shew  that  privately 
no  advantage  belonged  to  Bishop  Whitehouse  at  all  from  the 
rise  in  value  of  the  property.  If  any  private  advantage  was 
to  be  had  it  belonged  to  the  gentlemen  who  had  originally 
agreed  to  buy.  But  they  were  high-toned  business  men,  some 
of  them  members  of  the  Chicago  Board  of  Trade,  and  such 
claims  did  not  accord  with  their  own  standard  of  right,  nor  with 
that  of  the  Board  of  which  they  were  members. 

However,  Mr.  Beers  concluded  to  forego  the  inducement 
offered  by  the  $2,000,  and  to  decline  the  Bishop's  offer. 

And  now  my  friends  let  us  stop.  Do  we  need  any  more 
conclusive  evidence  of,  or  index  to  "the  nature  of  the  man?" 
I  do  not  think  we  do.  If,  however,  any  of  my  readers  do,  we 
will  find  it  in  the  document  which  he  finally  ashed  Mr.  Beers  to 


28  BISHOP    WH3TEHOUSE    AM) 

sign,  and  which,  with  slight  modification,  he  required  him  to 
sign  before  he  would  re-convey.  But  I  think  the  letter  written 
nearly  seven  years  since  shews  plainly  the  "tendency"  of 
which  I  have  so  plainly  spoken  in  the  early  part  of  this  pamphlet. 

Now,  then,  read  the  letter  of  the  subscribers  to  the  original 
fund,  addressed  to  the  Bishop,  March,  1854 — two  months  after 
the  Bishop  had  made  the  overtures  of  private  purchase  of  the 
residence  lot — in  which  they  asked  him  to  re-deed  the  property 
to  Mr.  Beers. 

They  were  the  parties  entitled,  if  any  were,  except  the  Dio- 
cese or  Mr.  Beers,  to  the  rise  in  value  of  the  real  estate ;  they, 
however,  waived  this  right  and  authorized  the  re-deeding  to  Mr. 
Beers. 

This  is  a  document  not  written  in  1860.  It  was  written 
when  the  subject  of  re-deeding  was  first  broached.  It  shows 
the  early  views  taken  of  the  matter,  and  is  the  plainest  proof 
of  what  the  subscribers  originally  intended.  It  was  signed 
by  men  who  now  have  ceased  to  take  any  active  part  in  the 
matter,  but  whose  names  are  those  of  some  of  the  best  business 
men  Chicago  knows  to-day.     Read  it  and  see  what  they  say. 

Chicago,  March  10th,  1854. 

Right  JRev'd  and  Dear  Bishop  : — We,  the  undersigned,  subscribers  to  the 
Cathedral  Church,  having  interchanged  our  respective  opinions  with  regard  to 
the  condition  of  the  enterprise,  unanimously  resolve,  "  That  the  church  lot 
ought  to  be  re-conveyed  to  Mr.  Beers,  and  the  notes  surrendered  to  the  par- 
ties who  gave  them  without  further  delay." 

"Firstly. — Because  the  delay,  and  want  of  action  with  which  the  first 
movement  made  by  us  has  been  followed  up,  and  the  failure  on  your  part  to 
take  up  your  residence,  and  commence  your  ministration  among  us,  has  oper- 
ated to  cast  a  damper  upon  the  original  feeling  and  enthusiasm  out  of  which 
this  movement  sprung. 

"  Secondly. — Because  that,  although  the  deed  itself  gives  a  period  of  ten 
years  for  the  completion  of  the  Church  ;  yet  that  time  was  given  at  your  par- 
ticular suggestion  and  request,  and  with  reference  to  the  completion  of  the 
entire  enterprise  in  all  its  parts,  but  upon  the  express  understanding  of  the 
undersigned,  that  the  Church  was  to  be  commenced  forthwith,  and  that  the 
subscribers  were  at  once  to  receive  the  benefit  of  their  subscriptions  ;  and  fur- 
ther, that  the  term  of  ten  years  was  objected  to  by  Mr.  Beers  and  others,  but 


THE   DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  29 

was  inserted  upon  the  ground  that  the  project  would  either  fail  or  succeed  at 
once ;  and  the  additional  time  would  make  no  difference,  which  was  so  stated 
by  yourself. 

"  Thikdly. — Because  the  whole  subscription  was  a  joint  understanding  for 
the  purpose  of  buying  both  lots,  and  each  individual  subscribed  upon  the  faith 
of  the  payment  of  all.  Now  a  large  number  of  the  subscribers  having  refused 
to  pay ;  and  the  subscriptions  not  being  in  such  a  condition  as  to  be  enforced, 
it  would  be  unjust  to  compel  the  signers  of  the  notes  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Beers 
(who  refuse  payment,)  to  pay  their  subscriptions,  when  the  undertaking  has 
been  abandoned  by  their  co-contributors;  besides  Mr.  Beers  has  been  already 
kept  too  long  out  of  the  property  for  which  he  has  received  no  consideration. 

And  Lastly. — Because  there  has  been  a  great  misunderstanding  between 
many  of  the  contributors  and  yourself,  with  reference  to  your  agreement  to 
obtain  funds  from  the  East,  to  build  the  Church  without  delay,  and  also  with 
reference  to  the  nature,  object,  and  execution  of  the  enterprise.  Therefore, 
we  have  lost  faith  and  interest  in  the  undertaking,  for  it  has  not  progressed, 
or  in  any  way  wise  come  up  to  our  original  ideas  and  expectations,  or  met  the 
ends  and  objects  of  our  subscriptions ;  and,  therefore,  we  consider  that  in 
order  to  carry  out  that  good  faith  in  which  the  enterprise  was  commenced,  it 
becomes  necessary  to  place  the  parties  and  property  in  the  original  condition  ; 
so  with  that  aim  and  object,  we  address  you  this  letter ;  hoping  it  will  receive 
your  immediate  attention. 

Yours,  respectfully, 
JAMES  MORGAN,  EDWIN  C.  LARXED, 

J.  T.  RYERSON,  D.  0.  BRADLEY, 

CYRENITJS  BEERS,  GEO.  W.  LAY,  Jr., 

D.  J.  ELY,  M.  C.  STEARNS, 

B.  F.  HADDUCK,  JNO.  M.  WILSON. 

P.  S. — As  it  is  the  wish  of  a  large  majority  of  the  contributors,  that  the 
church  lot  should  be  re-deeded  to  Mr.  Beers,  and  the  notes  surrendered  to  the 
parties ;  and  although  we  have  been,  and  are  willing  to  pay  our  notes,  we 
cheerfully  join  in  the  request  that,  under  all  the  circumstances,  the  lot  be  re- 
conveyed  to  Mr.  Beers,  and  the  parties  placed  in  their  original  position. 

WILLIAM  BLAIR, 
L.  P.  HILLIARD. 
Addressed  to  the  Right  Rev'd  Henry  J.   Whitehouse,  No.   54  Eleventh 
street,  New  York  City. 


Bishop  Whitehouse  replied  to  this  very  positively  in  the  nega- 
tive. This  letter  is  in  my  opinion  a  very  important  link  in  the 
chain  of  this  history.  It  is  entitled  to  a  close  reading,  as 
giving  not  the  opinion  of  one  man,  or  the  recollection  of  an 
individual  as  touching  the  spirit  of  the  compacts,  and  the  col- 
lateral traditionary  history  or  interpretation  of  the  tangible 


30  BISHOP   WHITEIIOUSE    AND 

written  document,  but  the  unanimous  view  of  the  whole  of 
the  subscribers  to  the  fund  as  given  by  them  nearly  seven 
years  since. 

Read  it  carefully.  I  make  no  comment ;  it  speaks  for  itself. 
I  will  have  occasion  to  refer  to  it  again. 

Here  the  matter  rested.  The  special  form  of  the  Bishop's 
plan  of  a  Cathedral  being  viewed  by  some  as  an  evidence  of 
the  "tendency"  on  his  part  "  to  concentrate  in  himself  power 
and  control,"  of  which  I  have  hereinbefore  spoken,  the  sub- 
ject was  brought  up  in  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  1855. 

The  Journal  will  best  convey  the  history  of  the  matter.  I 
quote  the  language  of  it  and  italicise  the  parts  to  which  I 
desire  to  call  attention,  and  have  parenthetically  made  such 
explanatory  comments  as  I  deemed  advisable.  Of  course  my 
interpolations  are  easily  distinguishable  from  the  language  of 
the  report. 

Extracts  from  the  Journal  of  a  Special  Convention,  in  lieu  of 
the  Eighteenth  Annual  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  held  in  St.  Paid's  Church, 
Alton,  17th,  18th  and  19th  October,  1855  : 

"  The  Committee  appointed  on  the  subject  of  the  Bishop's  Church  and  resi- 
dence, offered  a  report,  which,  after  reading  was  withdrawn.''''  [Why  was  it 
withdrawn  V]  "  After  conference  with  the  Bishop,  the  Committee  offered  the 
following 

REPORT: 

The  Committee  to  which  was  referred  the  subject  of  a  Bishop's  Church  and 
Residence,  beg  leave  to  report  that  after  frequent  sessions  and  much  anxious 
enquiry,  they  have  arrived  at  the  following  resufts. 

The  facts,  a  part  of  which  were  reported  to  the  last  Convention,  arc  sub- 
stantially as  follows : 

"  Some  three  years  since,  two  valuable  lots  of  ground,  situated  in  a  most 
prosperous  and  interesting  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  were  purchased  of  C. 
Beers,  Esq.,  by  subscriptions  from  several  contributors,  which  we  shall  denom- 
inate Nos.  1  and  2.  No.  1  was  intended  for  a  'Cathedral  Church,' of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Illinois,  as  is  declared  ou  the 
face  of  the  Deed  of  Conveyance  ;  and.  one  of  the  conditions  subsequent  of 
the  title  is,  that  the  lot  shall  within  ten  years  from  the  date  of  the  instrument 


THE    DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  31 


be  occupied  by  a  Cathedral  Church  ;"  [The  committee  knew  nothing  of  the 
verbal  compact  on  which  the  deed  was  given.]  "the  property  is  conveyed  to 

the  '  Right  Reverend  Henry  J.  Whitehouse,  Bishop  of  Illinois,  and  his  suc- 
cessors in  office,'  as  Trustees  for  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this 
Diocese.  An  Act  of  Incorporation  for  this  Trusteeship  was  obtained  during 
the  session  of  the  Legislature  in  the  winter  of  1853. 

"The  lot  was  paid  for  at  the  time  of  purchase  in  judgment  notes,  given  by 
different  persons  in  Chicago,  as  subscriptions  for  this  specific  object,  and  were 
received  by  Mr.  Beers  in  payment.  Mr.  Beers  acknowledges  the  validity  of 
the  title ;  and  at  the  same  time  it  is  not  questioned  that  the  money  may  be 
realized  from  the  subscription  notes.  Mr.  Beers,  however,  in  common  with 
some  of  the  subscribers,  is  now  dissatisfied  with  the  whole  transaction.  He, 
on  the  ground  that  he  has  not  realized  the  money,  and  cannot  without  litiga- 
tion with  his  neighbors  and  Christian  brethren,  which  he  deprecates  as  a 
greater  evil  than  the  loss  of  the  property. 

"  The  unwillingness  of  the  subscribers  to  pay  has  resulted  from  untoward 
circumstances  not  necessary  here  to  be  named,  calcidated  to  bring  tlie  project  of  a 
Bishop's  Church  into  disrepute,  [The  Bishop's  plan  would  have  given  him  the 
power  to  bring  any  number  of  assistants  to  the  Convention.]  especially  among 
the  Churchmen  of  Chicago.  In  view  of  all  the  embarrassments  of  the  case, 
Mr.  Beers  asks  that  the  property  be  re-deeded,  and  the  whole  project  on  this 
basis  abandoned.  This  the  Bishop  has  hesitated  to  do,  justly  alleging  that  as 
he  is  but  the  Trustee  of  the  Diocese,  lie  has  not  the  right  to  re-deed  it  without 
instruction  to  that  effect  from  the  Convention. 

"  Of  the  soundness  of  the  title  to  lot  No.  1  there  is  no  question,  provided  a 
Cathedral  Church  be  erected  on  the  ground  within  the  time  specified.  The 
conveyance  was  made  in  good  faith,  and  Mr.  Beers  may  realize  the  money  on 
the  subscription  notes  in  his  possession. 

"  The  title  to  lot  No.  2  is  in  question.  This  was  purchased,  or  intended  to 
be  purchased,  and  presented  to  the  Bishop,  to  build  upon  it  a  house  for  his 
own  private  residence.  [The  Committee  had  only  been  in  "  Conference  with 
the  Bishop  ;"  they  had  not  seen  the  documents  now  published.]  The  Bishop, 
in  connection  with  the  gift,  made  a  voluntary  [It  is  not  so ;  the  stipulation 
was  made  at  the  suggestion  of  Judge  John  M.  Wilson.]  stipulation  to  the 
effect  that  the  Diocese  should  have  the  privilege  of  purchasing,  at  any  time 
within  ten  years,  the  whole,  at  the  cost  of  the  house,  and  thus  make  it  Dioce- 
san property  for  the  residence  of  his  successors.  No  deed,  however,  was  exe- 
cuted at  the  time  by  Mr.  Beers  of  this  property ;  but  certain  memoranda 
are  still  in  existence,  [Who  had  the  memoranda  ?]  showing  the  agreement  of 
the  parties  to  certain  conditions  on  which  the  transfer  should  be  made. 

"  The  Bishop,  in  different  ways,  [Yes,  he  wanted  to  buy  the  property,  pri- 
vately, and,  as  we  have  seen,  for  $6,000  for  his  own  individual  use.~\  has  ten- 
dered to  Mr.  Beers  the  amount  necessary  to  pay  the  whole  price  of  No.  2, 
[They,  no  doubt,  intended  No.  3  the  residence  lot.]  which  Mr.  Beers  has  de- 
clined receiving.  [Of  course,  he  did.  Mr.  Beers  did  not  design  giving  Bishop 
Whitehouse  the  advantage  of  the  rise.  If  the  Church  was  not  going  there, 
he  wanted  the  advance.]     This,  however,  your  Committee   regard  thus  far  as 


32  BISHOP    WIIITEHOCSE   AND 

a  private  rather  than  an  ecclesiastical  matter,  inasmuch  as  the  Bishop  has 
power  to  relinquish  the  lot  if  he  sees  tit,  and  has  no  disposition  to  retain  it  for 
any  personal  benefit.  [Did  the  final  adjustment  show  this  ?  Do  Dr.  Brainard 
and  Judge  Dickey  think  thus.] 

"  It  cannot,  however,  be  regarded  with  indifference  whether  as  the  property 
of  our  Bishop,  or  in  view   of  its  being  in  due   time  transfered  to  the  Diocese. 

"  Your  Committee  has  had  serious  apprehensions  whether  the  whole  enter- 
prise might  not  have  to  be  abandoned,  in  consequence  of  the  many  difficulties 
with  whieh  it  is  embarrassed.  They  have  no  doubt  of  the  compatability  of 
the  outline,  [Of  the  Cathedral  plan.]  if  carefully  guarded  in  the  details,  with 
the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  Church,  and  with  the  prevailing  sentiment 
of  the  people  of  the  Diocese.  Yet  it  might  not  be  judicious,  even  if  legally 
right,  to  proceed  to  occupy  the  ground  without  Mr.  Beers  receiving  full  compensa- 
tion according  to  the  contract,  nor  would  it  be  safe  to  institute  any  violent  means 
for  the  collection  of  tlie  subscription  notes,  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  signers. 

"  Most  of  this  feeling,  however,  at  this  time  so  formidable  to  the  enterprise, 
it  is  believed  might  be  overcome  by  giving  to  the  Institution  a  specific  form 
which  would  be  understood  and  approved.  Your  Committee  would  therefore 
recommend  the  Bishop,  if  consistent  with  his  views,  to  prosecute  the  enter- 
prise, by  soliciting  aid  among  such  persons  as  may  feel  interested  in  it,  with 
an  eye  to  building  as  soon  as  may  be  deemed  practicable,  either  on  the  ground 
purchased  of  Mr.  Beers,  or  on  such  other  property  as  may  be  hereby  [That 
is  under  this  Canon  and  Report.]  acquired  in  any  other  part  of  the  city  ;  and 
for  the  government  of  the  Church  they  recommend  the  following  Canon, 
which  in  case  tlie  Church  shoidd  be  prosecuted,  [So  that  the  Canon  is  not  yet 
in  force.]  they  would  have  incorporated  in  the  Canons  of  the  Diocese. 


"CANON." 

"  The  Cathedral  or  Bishop's  Church  located  in  Chicago,  shall  be  for  ever  the 
seat  of  the  Episcopate  of  Illinois,  and  the  Bishop  shall  be  ex-ojficio  its  Rector 
and  Spiritual  Head.  The  plan  and  order  of  its  administration  shall  be  the 
same  as  that  of  Parish  Churches,  with  this  difference  only,  that  in  place  of  a 
Vestry,  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  shall  co-operate  with  the  Bishop 
in  its  business  relations,  and  in  all  matters  which  usually  claim  the  attention  of 
the  Vestry  of  the  ordinary  Parish  Church.  It  shall,  moreover,  pay  a  regular  sal- 
ary to  the  Bishop,  such  as  tlie  Standing  Committee  shall  fix,  and  declare  con- 
sistent with  its  ability ;  and  this  sum  shall  form  part  of  tlie  salary  of  the 
Bishop  assumed  by  tlie  Diocese. 

"  Said  Church  shall  have  one  or  more  assistants  to  the  Bishop,  as  shall  be 
approved  by  the  Standing  Committee — Priests,  or  Deacons,  who  shall  be  nomi- 
nated by  the  Bishop,  and  approved  by  the  Standing  Committee,  or  by  the  Con- 
vention of  the  Diocese,  if  referred  to  it  by  the  Bishop,  and  one  assistant 
[This  defeated  the  Bishop's  idea.]  with  four  lay  delegates  may  occupy  a  scat 


THE    DIOCESE    OF    ILLINOIS.  39 

in  the  Diocesan  Convention,  and  exercise  the  same  suffrages  as  other  Presb) 
ters  and  Lay  delegates  from  Parish  Churches." 
"Your  Committee  recommend  the  following 

"RESOLUTIONS." 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  heartily  recommends  the  establishment  of 
a  '  Cathedral,'  or  Bishop's  '  Church,'  in  accordance  with  the  above  Canon, 
[Ignoring  the  project  desired  by  the  Bishop.]  and  will  cheerfully  make  every 
exertion  within  its  power  to  promote  the  object.  If,  however,  the  plan  here- 
with recommended  shall  not  meet  the  approval  of  the  Bishop,  it  hereby  gives 
him  full  power  as  Trustee  of  the  Diocese   to-redeed  the  property  to  Mr.  Beers. 

"Resolved,  That  incase  the  Bishop  should  so  far  approve  the  above  Canon, 
as  to  be  willing  to  proceed  under  it,  but  should  find  in  his  own  estimation  and 
that  of  the  Standing  Committee,  [The  Bishop  did  not  consult  the  Standing 
Committee,  June,  1860,  before  he  re-deeded  to  Mr.  Beers.]  that  it  is  injudi- 
cious or  unadvisable  to  occupy  the  lot  or  lots  purchased  of  Mr.  Beers,  the 
Convention  will  recommend  and  approve  the  purchase  of  other  property  with 
such  funds  as  the  Bishop  may  be  able  to  command  on  which  the  Bishop's 
Church  shall  be  erected ;  and  in  this  case  it  recommends  the  Bishop  to  re-deed 
the  property  purchased  of  Mr.  Beers. 

"  Resolved,  That  in  case  the  Bishop  shall  not  be  willing  to  proceed  under  the 
Canon,  or  the  project  from  any  cause  should  be  found  impracticable  on  this 
basis,  the  Convention  must  reluctantly  consent  to  abandon  it." 

S.  Y.  McMASTERS,  Chairma.v. 

Now,  having  read  the  foregoing  report,  answer  the  follow- 
ing questions  : 

First. — Did  not  the  Bishop  hesitate  until  he  had  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Convention  to  re-deed  the  property  to  Mr.  Beers, 
as  shown  under  the  report,  thereby  shewing  the  necessity  of 
their  co-operation  and  their  authority  to  co-operate  ? 

Second. — Did  not  that  report  state  that  the  Bishop  justly 
so  hesitated,  and  hence  the  Convention  claimed  its  right  to 
co-operate  ? 

Third. — Did  not  the  Bishop  thereby  grant  that  the  Con- 
vention had  something  to  do  with  the  matter  ? 

Fourth. — Did  not  the  Convention  endorse  the  correctness 
of  that  view,  thereby  asserting  their  right  to  an  advisory  con- 
trol over  the  property  ? 

Fifth. — Did  not  the  Convention  in  the  resolutions  contem- 
plate two  phases  of  the  matter,  under  either  of  which  the 


34  BISHOP    WIIITEIIOUSE    AND 

Bishop  was  recommended  to  re-deed  the  property.  1st.  In 
case  the  plan  of  the  Cathedral  recommended  by  the  Conven- 
tion did  not  meet  the  approval  of  the  Bishop,  the  power  was 
given  him  to  re-deed  to  Mr.  Beers,  not  re-sell  to  Mr.  Beers,  or 
sell  to  any  one  else.  2d.  In  ease  the  Bishop  and  Standing 
Committee  thought  it  (inadvisable  to  occupy  that  particular 
property,  then  to  re-deed  to  Mr.  Beers — not  to  sell  the  property 
and  with  the  proceeds  of  it  build  elsewhere. 

Sixth. — Now,  while  reports  made  after  "  conferences  with 
the  Bishop,"  and  "  opinions  of  Standing  Committees,"  made 
or  expressed  under  the  influence  of  a  desire  to  heal  sores  or  to 
please  the  Bishop,  have  no  more  weight  with  me  than  the 
opinions  of  other  good  men,  when  I,  as  well  as  they,  have  the 
facts  and  documents  to  judge  from,  I  will  say,  that  if  that 
report  is  worth  anything,  (and  I  think  it  worth  a  great  deal,) 
did  the  Convention  of  1855  ever  intimeite  that  any  money  or 
consideration  was  necessary  to  be  paid,  or  was  contemplated 
to  be  paid  ? 

Clearly  not.  If  that  property  was  not  used  for  a  Cathedral, 
it  was  to  be  deeded  back.  The  report  even  says  that  though 
the  deed  was  unqualified  to  Bishop  Whitehouse,  still  if  the 
notes  were  not  paid  they  deemed  it  injudicious  to  occupy  the 
ground,  and  they  were  by  no  means  clear  that  it  would  be  well 
to  prosecute  the  collection  of  the  notes  contrary  to  the  wishes 
of  the  signers. 

The  whole  report  breathes  a  spirit  of  fairness  and  equity, 
and  the  resolutions  clearly  interpret  it. 

Here  it  will  be  perceived  the  Bishop  hesitated  to  re-deed  to 
Mr.  Beers,  without  the  authority  of  the  Convention  so  to  do, 
the  Committee  and  the  Convention  saying  that  he  "justly" 
so  hesitated. 

The  one  conceding,  the  other  accepting,  and  asserting  its 
right  to  such  concession,  the  Bishop  at  his  own  time  and  on 
his  own  terms,  receiving  money  where  its  reception  was  plainly 


Tin:    DIOCESB    OF   ILLINOIS.  35 

not  contemplated,  does  use  the  authority  of  the  Convention 
and  does  re-deed,  and  yet,  when  the  source  of  that  authority 
propose  to  ask  if  lie  has  used  their  permission  aright,  he  tells 
them:  "  Gentlemen,  you  have  nothing  to  do  with  tin- matter, 
I  am  corporator  sole.  A  civil  tribunal  is  the  only  one  which 
can  call  me  to  an  account,  and  none  else  shall." 

Now,  the  Bishop  says  he  only  acted  with  the  full  authority 
of  the  Convention  in  re-deeding  the  property  to  Mr.  Beers,  at 
the  same  time  says  the  Convention  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
matter,  and  places  himself  behind  the  screen  afforded  him  by 
the  resolutions  adopted  at  the  late  Convention,  as  follows, 
to  wit : — 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Convention,  whiio  it  does  not  consider  itself  charged 
with  the  management  of  the  $6,000  received  by  the  Bishop  in  the  compromise 
with  Cyrenius  Beers,  Esq.,  concerning  the  Chicago  property  heretofore  intended 
for  a  Bishop's  Church  and  residence,  hereby  expresses  its  satisfaction  with  the 
declaration  made  by  the  Bishop  in  his  address  to  this  Convention,  and  his 
subsequent  statement  that  he  holds  the  same  in  trust,  and  not  for  any  pri- 
vate use. 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  does  not  consider  that  at  this  time  any 
further  action  is  necessary  upon  its  part  on  the  subject  of  said  sum  of 
$6,000. 

He  denies  the  right  of  the  Convention  to  interfere,  and  yet 
defends  himself  by  their  authority.  He  uses  the  authority  to 
deed,  but  transcends  it  by  taking  $6,000  for  the  conveyance. 
He  asks  the  authority  of  the  Convention  to  deed,  and  yet  takes 
to  use,  as  he  may  see  fit,  the  proceeds,  telling  the  Convention 
it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  money  he  received  for  the  prop- 
erty it  authorized  him  to  sell. 

Moreover,  he  takes  $6,000  for  the  deed,  and  names  one  dollar 
as  the  consideration. 

He  comes  to  the  Convention  coerced  by  the  overwhelming 
force  of  popular  feeling,  and  confesses  that  though  the  deed 
says  "  One  Dollar,"  he  received  $6,000 ;  and  though  he  told 
Rev.  Mr.  Pratt  (as  stated  by  Mr.  P.  in  convention,)  that  the 
money  was  as  much  his  as  any  property  he  owned  upon  earth, 


36  Bisuor  aviiiteiiou.se  and 

and  that  he  took  the  $6,000  on  the  residence  lot  so  as  to  avoid 
even  the  appearance  of  a  trust,  now  says  it  is  a  trust  fund, 
but  he  does  as  he  pleases  with  it. 

Moreover,  Mr.  Beers  was  driven  to  the  payment  of  the 
$6,000,  and  was  compelled  to  take  the  quit  claim  deed,  one 
dollar  consideration,  or  else  have  the  matter  stand  along  indefi- 
nitely and  undecided.  Mr.  Beers  further  had  to  sign  a  paper, 
which  contained  only  enough  of  the  truth  regarding  the  matter 
to  make  it  possible  for  him  to  sign  it,  and  yet  not  wholly  com- 
promise himself. 

He  was  compelled  to  sign  this  paper  or  go  without  his  deed. 
Sick  of  the  delay,  sick  of  the  worry,  he  gave  the  $6,000,  and 
signed  a  semi-truthful  statement  rather  than  have  the  contest 
prolonged. 

On  the  foregoing  grounds,  and  for  reasons  springing  out  of 
the  foregoing  statement  and  facts,  the  feeling  was  very  gener- 
ally entertained  that  Mr.  Beers  should  not  have  been  required 
to  pay  anything,  save  perhaps  the  taxes,  (which  he  did  repay 
to  the  Bishop  with  interest,)  in  order  to  regain  his  title. 

Prompted  by  this  feeling,  and  by  a  wish  to  have  the  Diocese 
free  from  any  stain  or  imputation  of  having  the  use  or  benefit 
of  money,  extorted  from  a  generous  donor,  and  the  fruits  of 
the  mere  default  of  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  in  complying 
with  his  part  of  a  contract,  the  large  and  respectable  portion 
of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  in  the  last  Convention,  who  voted  for 
an  investigation,  did  take  the  ground  that,  if  such  were  the 
facts,  the  money  should  go  back. 

Such  investigation  was  prevented  by  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution,  which  I  have  just  given  as  the  screen  behind  which 
the  Bishop  sheltered  himself,  as  a  substitute  for  the  one  offered 
by  Judge  Otis,  asking  for  the  investigation,  which  would  have 
brought  before  that  Convention   all  the  documents  I  now  give. 

On  the  evening  of  Thursday  the  votes  stood  eighteen  for 
the  investigation  to  seventeen  against,  as  shown  by  all  the 


THE    DIOCESE    OF    ILLINOIS. 


votes  on  amendments  and  substitutes.     Amotion  to   adjourn 
was  made  and  carried. 

The  next  morning  the  name  of  Rev.  Mr.  Ryall  was  announced 
as  entitled  to  a  place  on  the  list  of  Clergy,  entitled  to  scats. 
His  claim  to  a  seat  had  not  been  before  clear  to  the  Bishop. 

The  vote  was  then  taken  on  a  substitute  offered  that  morn- 
ing, Mr.  Ryall  voting  in  favor  of  it.  The  name  of  Mr.  Gilbert 
being  called,  befcr"  the  result  was  announced,  his  vote  was 
objected  to,  and  I  give  a  copy  of  the  history  of  the  matter  in 
the  written  language  of  C.  C.  Parks,  Esq.,  since  gone  to  his 
rest  with  the  blessed. 

"  Before  the  vote  was  announced  by  the  Secretary,  the  vote 
of  the  Reverend  Mr.  Gilbert  Avas  challenged  by  Mr.  Parks,  of 
Christ's  Church,  Waukegan,  upon  the  grounds  that  he  was 
not  entitled  to  a  seat  in  Convention,  he  not  being  '  settled  in 
some  Church  within  this  Diocese  which  is  in  union  with  the 
Convention,'  nor  was  he  'employed  as  a  missionary  within- 
its  bounds  under  the  direction  of  the  Convention  or  of  the 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese.'  (See  Art.  5th,  Constitution  of  Diocese 
of  Illinois.)  The  Bishop  ruled  the  challenge  out  of  order, 
although  made  before  the  vote  was  announced  by  the  Secretary. 

"An  appeal  was  taken  from  said  decision,  which  appeal  the 
Bishop  refused  to  entertain.  The  name  of  the  Reverend  Mr. 
Gilbert  was  placed  upon  the  list  of  Clergy  on  the  evening  of 
the  second  day  of  Convention,  after  adjournment  and  after  the 
introduction  of  Judge  Otis'  resolution,  and  after  several  test 
votes  had  been  taken  upon  the  resolution,  the  said  Gilbert 
voting  in  the  affirmative. 

"  After  the  substitute  was  carried  in  the  manner  above  spe- 
cified, Mr.  Kerfoot,  of  the  '  Holy  Communion,  Chicago,'  intro- 
duced a  preamble  and  resolution,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
annexed,  mai'ked  '  A,'  which  the  Bishop  presiding  declared  to 
be  out  of  order,  and  afterwards  modified  his  decision  by  stating 

that  the  subject  matter  of  the  preamble  and  resolution  could 

4 


38  BISIIOr    WIIITEIIOUSE   AXD 

not  be  brought  before  the  Convention,  except  by  consent  of 
two-thirds,  thereupon  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hodges  introduced  the  fol- 
lowing resolution,  and  asked  a  two-thirds  vote  thereon  : 

"Resolved,  That  the  consent  of  this  House  is  hereby  given  to  the  re-introduc- 
tion  of  the  subject  of  the  $6,000  referred  to  in  the  Bishop's  address,  with  the 
adjustment  of  which  the  Convention  this  morning  by  a  majority  of  one  cleri- 
cal vote  declared  itself  satisfied." 

"  The  Bishop  presiding  declared  said  resolution  to  be  out  of 
order,  and  refused  to  put  the  motion,  from  which  decision  Mr. 
Parks  took  an  appeal  to  the  Convention,  which  appeal  the 
Bishop  presiding  refused  to  entertain,  stating  in  his  reasons  that 
the  Convention  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter,  to  which 
said  decision  the  undersigned  protested,  and  hereby  protest 
and  ask  that  the  same  may  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  of  this 
Convention." 

The  substitute  was  thus  carried,  and  the  investigation  pre- 
vented by  the  admission  of  Mr.  Gilbert's  vote,  whose  right  to 
a  seat  being  disputed,  was  not  decided  by  the  convention,  but 
by  the  dictum  of  the  Bishop,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Canon,  viz  : — "  The  right  of  any  clergyman  of  this  Diocese  to 
a  seat  in  the  Convention,  shall,  if  disputed,  be  determined  by 
the  Convention  itself." 

He  was  ordained  to  the  lay-diaconate  on  "Wednesday,  was 
present  as  a  spectator  on  Wednesday  and  Thursday,  and  on 
that  evening,  after  adjournment)  (and  not  during  the  afternoon, 
as  has  been  stated,)  the  Bishop  directed  the  Secretary  to  put 
the  voter's  name  on  the  list. 

An  attempt  to  re-open  the  matter,  after  the  passage  of  the 
resolution  declaring  it  closed,  was  ruled  out  of  order  by  the 
Bishop,  as  Mr.  Park's  history  shows,  and  no  debate  on  the  ques- 
tion allowed  by  him. 

Other  resolutions  {not  touching  the  subject  matter)  were  ruled 
out  of  order  before  they  were  read,  and  not  allowed  to  be  de- 
bated, on  the  ground  of  their  relevancy  to  the  matter  of  the 
86,000. 


THE    DIOCESE    OF    ILLINOIS.  39 

The  preamble  to  a  resolution,  asking  the  Convention  to  in- 
struct the  Secretary  to  send  a  petition  to  the  Legislature  of 
Illinois,  asking   a  repeal  of  the    act   of  incorporation,  under 

which  the  Bishop  as  Corporator  Sole,  held  properly — on  the 
ground  of  its  not  being  consonant  with  the  spirit  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church — was  not  allowed  to  be  read. 

The  Bishop  insisted  upon  the  reading  of  the  resolution  iirst, 
and  then  peremptorily  decided  it  out  of  order,  on  the  ground 
of  its  relevancy  to  the  $0,000  matter,  which  he  decided  closed. 

Another  resolution,  in  writing,  was  denied  a  hearing  before 
it  was  read,  and  only  after  some  debate,  and  a  solemn  assur- 
ance that  there  was  nothing  in  it  about  the  $6,000,  was  it 
allowed  to  be  heard.  It  proved  to  be  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the 
people  of  Quincy  for  their  hospitality. 

A  dictatorial  use  of  the  presiding  power  was  made  by  the 
Bishop,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  proposals,  save  one  to  adjourn, 
and  this,  of  course,  made  further  debate  impossible. 

Fortunately,  a  motion  had  been  made  and  seconded,  that 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Hodges,  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Communion, 
of  Chicago,  should  be  allowed  to  speak. 

The  Bishop,  with  great  avidity,  being  about  to  put  the  ques- 
tion of  adjournment,  was  reminded  that  such  a  motion  Avas 
made.  On  being  assured  by  various  members  that  such  Avas 
the  case,  the  question  was  put  and  carried;  and  Mr.  Hodges  in 
a  calm,  dignified  manner,  spoke  as  follows : 

"  Mb.  President — I  rejoice  that  a  man,  when  he  felt  impelled  by  a  sense  of 
right  and  duty  to  speak  out,  and  when  lie  thought  it  would  be  a  sin  for  him 
to  keep  silent,  was  allowed  by  this  house  to  give  utterance  to  his  conscientious 
convictions.  If  I  should  return  to  Chicago  without  having  used  every  possible 
means  to  bring  this  Convention  to  a  sense  of  justice,  and  to  right  action  on  the 
matter  of  this  S<3,000,  I  would  feel  that  my  character  might  justly  be  assailed. 
If  avc  had  been  allowed  to  consider  the  matter,  not  on  its  legal  and  technical 
relations  only,  but  on  the  basis  of  common  sense  and  grounds  of  equity,  I 
think  that  the  Convention  would  have  come  to  a  very  different  decision,  and 
that  the  money  would  be  immediately  paid  back  to  Mr.  Beers.  I  do,  there- 
fore, hereby,  as  a  Minister  of  Christ's  Church,  a  Christian  gentleman,  and  a 
member  of  this  house,  solemnly  enter  my  protest  against  the  action  of  this 


40  BISHOP   WHITEHOTJSE   A>~D 

house,  and  against  the  whole  proceedings  in  the  matter  of  the  Cathedral  lot, 
and  ask  that  this  protest  be  entered  upon  the  Journal ;  and  I  hereby  declare  it 
to  be  the  conviction  of  my  conscience  and  ray  heart,  that  this  whole  matter, 
from  beginning  to  end — and  I  want  the  Convention  to  understand  distinctly 
what  I  say — is  a  dishonest  transaction." 

Having  finished  his  short  speech,  the  Rev.  gentleman  sat 
down,  but  with  one  mind,  simultaneously  and  spontaneously,  a 
large  number  of  clergy,  laity  and  ladies  rose  and  left  the  church. 

Fully  agreeing  with  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Hodges7  remarks, 
and  leaving  the  foregoing  documents  (especially  the  letter  of 
the  Bishop  to  Mr.  Beers)  and  statements,  to  the  calm  judgment 
of  all  persons,  I  have  very  little  more  to  say,  by  way  of  com- 
ment, on  this  subject,  save  that,  do  what  we  may,  the  world 
will  say,  "  Why  such  unusual  desire  to  avoid  investigation  ? 
It  looks  very  suspicious  and  argues  very  poorly  in  favor  of 
freedom  from  wron<*." 


THE    BISHOP  S    EXHIBITS. 

After  the  close  of  the  late  Diocesan  Convention,  Bishop 
Whitehouse  prepared  a  species  of  appendix  to  the  Journal  of 
the  same,  of  which,  I  believe,  he  circulated  a  large  number, 
separate  from  the  Journal. 

There  were,  also,  printed  as  many  of  them  as  there  were  of 
the  Journal.  The  Standing  Committee,  the  Secretary,  having 
been  applied  to  by  C.  C.  Parks,  Esq.,  (now  since  deceased,)  for 
permission  to  issue  his  protest  with  the  Journal,  not  oidy  de- 
clined acceding  to  the  request  of  Mr.  Parks,  but  excluded 
the  Exhibits  of  the  Bishop,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not 
documents  referred  to  by  the  Convention,  and  hence  were  not 
properly  admissablc  within  the  cover  of  the  Journal  of  the 
same. 

The  first  is  the  Deed  of  Mr.  Beers  and  wife  to  Bishop 
Whitehouse,  conveying  the  Cathedral  lot. 


THE   DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  41 

Which  being  a  deed  of  the  usual  form,  I   omit,  save  the 

special  clause  to  which  reference  lias  hereinbefore  been  made 

two  or  three  times,  as  follows : 

Provided,  nevertheless,  and  this  deed  is  upon  this  express  condition,  that  a 
Cathedral  Church,  of  the  denomination  Protestant  Episcopal,  shall  be  erected 
on  said  lot,  within  ten  years  after  the  date  hereof,  and  Provided  further,  no 
building  shall  be  erected  thereon,  excepting  such  Cathedral  Church,  and  such 
other  permanent  structures  of  an  ecclesiastical,  eleemosynary  and  educational 
character  as  shall  be  necessary  or  desirable  for  or  appurtenant  to  said  Church. 

The  second  is  the  paper  which   the   Bishop   required  Mr. 

Beers  to  sign  as  a  sine  qua  non  to  the  making  of  the  deed  for 

the  Cathedral  lot,  as  follows  : 

Exhibit  No.  2. — Memorandum  of  Agreement,  Henry  J.  "Whitehouse  with 
Cyrenius  Beers. 

Memorandum  of  Agreement,  made  and  entered  into  this  twenty-first  day  of 
June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty,  by  and 
between  Henry  J.  Whitehouse,  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  in  the  county  of  Cook, 
and  State  of  Illinois,  party  of  the  first  part,  and  Cyrenius  Beers,  of  the  same 
place,  party  of  the  second  part. 

Whereas,  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  by  his  certain  contract  in  writing, 
bearing  date  the  first  day  of  December,  A.  D.,  1852,  covenanted  and  agreed 
to  convey  to  said  party  of  the  first  part,  lot  number  three  (3),  in  block  number 
eight  (8),  in  fractional  section  fifteen  addition  to  Chicago  ;  which  said  con- 
tract is  in  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit : 

Here  follows  the  supplemental  paper  given  on  page  20  of 
this  pamphlet. 

Now,  therefore,  this  Memorandum  of  Agreement  witnesseth  that  the  said  party 
of  the  first  part,  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  covenants  and  agreements  of 
the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  hereinafter  contained,  and  the  matters  and 
things  hereinafter  recited,  and  also  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  six 
thousand  dollars,  (§6,000),  to  him  in  hand  paid  by  said  party  of  the  second 
part,  at  the  time  of  the  execution  and  delivery  hereof,  and  the  receipt  where- 
of is  hereby  acknowledged,  doth  hereby  waive  and  release  all  the  light,  title, 
interest,  claim,  property  or  demand  whatsoever,  as  well  in  law  as  in  equity, 
which  he  may  have  in  said  above  recited  contract,  or  which  he  may  have 
acquired  by  virtue  thereof,  in  and  to  the  lands  and  premises  therein  men- 
tioned and  described,  hereby  releasing  and  discharging  the  said  party  of 
second  part  from  all  liability  on  account  thereof;  [and  also  at  the  same 
time  executes  and  delivers,  as  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopcd  Church,  of  the 
Diocese  of  Illinois,  his  certain  quit  claim  deed  of  same  date  herewith,  for  the  re- 
conveyance to  said  parti/  of  the  second  part,  of  all  the  right,  title,  and  interest 
tchicli,  as  such  Bishop,  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  acquired  in  and  to  lot  num.- 


42  BISHOP   WHITBHOTJSB    AND 

ber  2,  in  said  block  niunbcr  8,  in  fractional  section  fifteen  addition  to  Chicago, 
under  and  by  virtue  of  the  certain  indenture  of  said  t  'yreniv*  Beers  and  his  wife, 
bearing  date  the  eighteenth  day  of  February,  A.  J).,  1853,  recorded  vn  the  office 
of  the  recorder  in  and  for  tlie  county  of  Cook,  and  State  of  Illinois,  in  Book 
No.  59  of  Deeds,  on  page  265.] 

And  the  said  Cyrenius  Beers,  party  of  the  second  part,  in  consideration  of 
the  premises  at  the  time  of  the  execution  and  delivery  hereof,  pay  to  said  party 
of  the  first  part,  the  sum  of  six  thousand  dollars,  the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby 
acknowledged,  and  further  covenants  and  agrees  with  said  party  of  the  first 
part,  his  heirs,  executors  and  administrators,  to  waive  and  release  any  and  all 
claims  and  demands  which  he,  the  said  Cyrenius  Beers,  may  have  by  virtue  of 
said  above  recited  contract,  either  against  the  said  Henry  J.  Whitehouse, 
or  against  any  of  the  persons  whose  names  are  mentioned  in  said  contract,  as 
the  makers  of  the  notes  therein  specified. 

And  further  to  surrender  and  deliver  up  to  the  makers  thereof,  respectively, 
all  of  said  notes  that  have  been  received  in  persuance  of  said  contract  or  in- 
denture. 

The  intent  of  both  parties  being  to  hereby  cancel,  and  annul,  and  make  void 
and  of  no  effect,  said  contract,  and  on  the  part  of  the  said  party  of  the  second 
part,  to  save  harmless  the  makers  of  all  said  notes  from  all  liability  on  account 
thereof. 

This  memorandum  of  agreement  is  executed  in  duplicate,  each  party  taking 
one. 

In  testimony  whereof,  the  said  parties  have  hereunto  interchangeably  set 
their  hands  and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

HENRY  J.  WHITEHOUSE.     [seal.] 
CYREXIUS  BEERS.  [seal.] 

I  have  enclosed  in  square  brackets  the  clause  which  the 
Bishop  protested  against  having  inserted,  and  which  was  sug- 
gested by  mutual  friends  as  a  means  by  which  Mr.  Beers  might 
possibly  be  able  to  sign  the  paper. 

A  whole  day  was  occupied  in  adjusting,  arranging,  and 
re-arranging  this  paper.  Mutual  friends  and  attorneys  were 
frequently  consulted  in  regard  to  it.  The  Bishop  endeavoring 
to  avoid  any  appearance  of  receiving  the  funds  as  trust  money, 
and  Mr.  Beers  declining  to  sign  the  bald  statement,  as  it  was 
without  the  part  in  brackets. 

The  third  gives  the  opinion  of  the  Standing  Committee  of 
1856.  It  appears  to  differ  with  the  Convention  of  1855,  and 
advises  the  Bishop  to  keep  the  property,  and  go  on  with  the 
church;  and  it  further  advises  him  to  enforce  the  contract  with 


THE    DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  43 

Mr.  Beers  regarding  the.  residence  lot.  Here  is  where  the 
Standing  Committee  had  only  been  in  "  conference  with  the 
Bishop,"  and  had  not  seen  the  papers. 

The  fourth  gives  the  opinion  of  the  Standing  Committee 
of  1857.  I  am  free  to  say,  that  it  bears,  to  my  mind,  on 
its  very  face,  evidence  of  having  come  from,  if  not  the  pen, 
at  least  the  supervision,  if  not  dictation  of  Bishop  White- 
house  himself!  There  are  in  it  his  peculiar  expressions. 
There  is  in  it  his  characteristic  style  of  diction.  The  plans 
contained  in  it  are  very  like  his  plans.  They  aim  alone  at  his 
benefit.  No  men  would  so  far  misconstrue  the  documents  I 
have  hereinbefore  given,  as  to  say 

"That  the  title  to  the  lot,  designed  for  a  residence,  is  in  the  Rt.  Rev'd 
Henry  J.  YVhitehouse,  and  that  to  him  belongs  of  right,  the  lot  or  the  avail* 
thereof  in  any  compromise." 

Then  follows  a  shrewd  farsightcd  plan  of  adjusting  the  mat- 
ter with  Mr.  Beers,  which  aims  wholly  at  the  benefit  of  the 
Bishop,  and  not  at  all  at  that  of  the  Diocese,  save  in  so  much 
as  the  proceeds  were  to  be  applied  to  the  discharge  of  the 
claim  which  the  Bishop  was  making  against  the  Diocese  for 
salary  at  the  rate  of  $2,000  per  annum,  from  the  commencement 
of  his  Episcopate,  notwithstanding  he  had  begun  a  plan  at 
the  outset  of  his  Episcopate,  to  furnish  his  own  salary  by 
Parish  duties,  thereby  conceding,  as  I  argue,  that  he  did  not  at 
first  expect  the  Diocese  to  pay  him.  I  pronounce  it  a  plan  too 
well  laid  to  have  been  devised  by  any  one  who  was  not  doing 
it  for  his  own  private  benefit. 

Alex.  G.  Tyng,  Esq.,  of  Peoria,  one  of  the  signers  of  this 
report,  repudiated  it  in  open  convention  in  Quincy,  a  month 
since,  and  said  he  had  signed  it  under  a  misapprehension.  I 
have  no  great  wonder  to  express  that  Mr.  Tying  could  have 
signed  such  a  document,  as  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  the  same 
warm  impulse  and  desire  for  peace,  which  led  the  writer  of 


44  BISHOP    WIIITEHOUSE    AND 

Exhibit  No.  5  to  pen  it,  and  to  :isk  his  brethren  to  sign  it,  led 
Mr.  Tyng  and  his  associates  to  sign  No.  4. 

Exhibit  No.  5  docs  credit  to  the  hearts  of  the  signers.  That 
it  should  have  been  published  to  the  world,  as  any  ground  of 
evidence  against  their  consistency,  is  strange  to  me.  It  was' a 
proposal  to  Mr.  Beers,  and  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  Mr.  Beers 
was  willing  to  give  a  part  of  the  property  for  a  Bishop's  resi- 
dence. 

Bishop  Whitehonse,  if  I  have  not  been  misinformed,  acceded 
to  the  arrangement,  but  the  whole  matter  fell  through  when  the 
gentlemen  who  had  taken  the  business  in  hand  found  that 
Bishop  Whitehonse  insisted  upon  taking  the  title  to  the  resi- 
dence lot  in  his  own  private  name,  and  as  his  property  abso- 
lutely. Dr.  Brainard  can  tell  regarding  this,  as  he,  I  believe, 
supposed  he.  had  closed  the  negotiation  nicely,  and  had 
settled  the  vexed  question  finally.  But,  on  the  requirement 
of  the  Bishop  that  the  title  should  go  to  him  privately,  Dr. 
asked  the  Bishop's  pardon  for  doing  what  he  never  did  before, 
viz :  interfere  in  other  persons  private  affairs,  and  he  begged 
leave  to  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  matter. 

Exhibit  No.  6  has  been  disposed  of  by  the  Clergy.  I  need 
say  no  more  than  I  have  said  regarding  it  on  page  13  of 
this  pamphlet.  In  order  that  my  remarks  there  maybe  under- 
stood, I  havs  inserted  their  circular.  It  does  not  relate  to  the 
Cathedral  question,  but  it  shows  "  the  nature  of  the  man,"  and 
bears  testimony  to  the  general  correctness  of  my  ideas,  and  to 
the  sad  fact  that  we  have  a  Bishop  from  whose  hands  his  people 
will  not  receive  or  allow  their  children  to  receive  the  Holy  rite 
of  Confirmation. 

BISHOP  WHITEHOUSE  AND  THE  CHICAGO  CLERGY. 

Bishop  "Whitehouse  has  published  a  document  as  an  appendix  to  liis  address 
to  the  late  Diocesan  Convention,  entitled  "  Bishop's  Address,  18G0,  Exhibits." 

To  the  Exhibit  No.  6,  we  ask  the  attention  of  all  Churchmen.  Its  design  is 
to  show,  from  statistics,  that  the  Churches  in  Chicago  have  contributed  but 


THE   DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  45 

little  to  the  Missionary  work  of  the  Diocese,  during  the  last  year,  and  that  the 
number  of  confirmations  in  the  same  period  is  proportionally  less  in  the  city 
than  in  the  country.  From  the  Bishop's  Exhibit  we  make  the  following 
extracts : 

"  I.    DIOC'KSAN    MISSIONS. 

"  1859-GO — whole  amount,  $1,205  ;  amount  contributed  in  Chicago,  $189  ; 
contributed  in  the  rest  of  Diocese,  §1,016. 

"  II.    CONFIRMATIONS. 

"In  '58-59 — whole  number,  423  ;  in  Chicago,  117. 

"In  '59-60 — whole  number,  860  ;  in  Chicago,  76." 

The  above  is  what  the  Bishop  gives  as  the  figures  from  the  Journal  and  the 
Treasurer's  Report.  Now  we  are  compelled  to  say,  "frankly,  but  kindly" 
that  the  Bishop's  statements  are  erroneous;  and  to  make  our  assertion  good, 
wc  herewith  append  an  extract  from  the  Report  of  the  Treasurer  on  Diocesan 
Missions,  and  an  extract  from  the  Bishop's  own  list  of  confirmations,  as  appears 
in  his  address  of  this  year.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  amount  contributed  in  Chi- 
cago to  the  Diocesan  Missionary  work  for  the  last  years,  was  $356  40,  instead 
of  $189,  as  the  Bishop  states;  and  that  the  number  confirmed  in  the  Chicago 
Churches  during  the  last  year,  '59-60,  was  98,  and  not  76  as  the  Bishop  states. 

We  ask  any  person  to  open  the  Journal  and  mark  the  contrast  between  the 
Bishop's  statement  and  the  facts  and  figures  there  recorded. 

I.    DIOCESAN    MISSIONS    FOR    '59-60. 

Bishop's  statement— Total,  $1,205  ;  Chicago  Churches,  $189  00  ;  Country 
Churches,  1,016  00. 

Treasurer's  Report  (p.  30,  Journal) — Total,  1,205  ;  Chicago  Churches, 
$356  40 ;  Country  Churches,  $848  60. 

II.    CONFIRMATIONS    FOR    '59-60. 

Bishop's  statement — whole  number,  360 ;  confirmed  in  Chicago,  T6. 

According  to  facts  in  the  Journal,  359  ;  confirmed  in  Chicago,  9S.  (Sec 
pages  5  and  6.) 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  anything  more.  The  mere  statement  is  painful 
enough.  That  the  Bishop  should  seem  even  to  wrong  or  find  fault  with  the 
Chicago  Churches  or  Clergy,  on  the  eve  of  his  advent  amongst  us,  is  mysteri- 
ous enough  ;  but  that  he  should  give  such  an  erroneous  tabular  view,  in  face 
of  data  to  which  all  can  refer,  is  far  more  mysterious.  That  he  should  seem 
to  disparage  the  work  of  any  of  his  clergy  is  a  sad  fact,  that  he  has  misquoted 
the  records  in  order  to  do  so  is  a  still  sadder  fact. 

Of  course  all  the  "averages"  and  "proportions"  of  the  Bishop's  Exhibit 
No.  6,  go  to  the  ground,  with  his  figures. 

The  Chicago  Confirmations  for  1859-60,  were  37  per  cent,  of  the  whole 
number;  for  1858-59  they  were  only  36  per  cent,  of  the  whole  number,  so  that 
the  diminution  was  not  in  Chicago,  as  the  Bishop  states,  but  in  the  country. 
And  on  this  subject  we  feel  bound  to  say,  what  we  should  not  under  other  cir- 
cumstances, have  felt  ourselves  compelled  to  say,  viz:  That  the  Confirma- 
tions in  Chicago,  though  larger  in  proportion  to  the  whole  number  than  last  year 


46  BISHOP   AVHITEnOUSE    AND 

are  very  much  limited,  owing  to  the  plainly  expressed  unwillingness  of  many 
to  receive  the  holy  rite,  or  allow  their  families  to  receive  it  from  the  hands  of 
our  Bishop.  To  this  fact,  most  of  us  must  bear  reluctant  testimony.  As  to  our 
Diocesan  Missions,  we  can  only  hope  that  this  attempt  of  the  Bishop  to  depre- 
ciate our  efforts,  will  not  add  to  the  difficulty  we  already  contend  with,  in 
persuading  our  people  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  Missionaries  he  nom- 
inates. One  more  suggestion :  if  the  Bishop's  statements  are  erroneous  in 
these  relations,  may  they  not  be  in  other  particulars  ? 

(Signed,)     ROBERT  H.  CLARKSON,     Rector  St.  James. 

JAMES  PRATT,  "      Trinity. 

JOHN  0.  BARTON,  "      Atonement. 

H.  ST.  BISHOP,  "      St.  John's. 

EDMUND  B.  TTTTTLE,  "      St.  Ansgarius. 

CLINTON  LOCKE,  "      Grace. 

J.  SEBASTIAN  B.  HODGES,    "      Holy  Communion. 

WILLIAM  FULTON,  "      Ascension. 

CHAS.  EDWARD  CHENEY,     «      Christ  Church. 
Chicago,  September  29th,  1860. 

No.  1.  Extract  of  the  Bishop's  Address,  delivered  at  Quincy,  September 
13th,  1860 : 

LIST    OF    CONFIRMATIONS    IN    THE    PAST    TEAR. 

1859— September  18th,  Trinity,  Chicago 10 

"       November  8th,  Holy  Communion,  Chicago, 10 

1S60— February  12th,  Grace  Church, 15 

"  "        19th,  Church  of  Atonement,  Chicago, 7 

"  "  "  "       "    Ascension,         "         6 

"      March  4th,  St.  James  Church,  "         13 

"  "       "    St.  Ansgarius  Church,  "         15 

"       June  17th,  Trinity  Church,  "         2 

"  "       "    Christ  Church,  "         3 

"       "    St.  John's  Church,  "         17 

Total, 98 

No.  2.  Extract  from  Report  of  Rev.  T.  N.  Morrison,  Treasurer  of  Diocesan 
Missions. 

RECEIVED    DURING    TnE    PAST    TEAR    FROM 

Chicago  Atonement $  37  03 

"      Grace, 65  37 

"     Ascension, 3  00 

"      Holy  Communion, 15  60 

"      Trinity  Church, 10  00 

"      St.  James  Church, 225  40 


Total, $356  40 

The  pith  of  a  very  sarcastic,  and,  in  my  opinion,  ill-judged 
and  nn-Episcopal  reply  which  Bishop  Whitehouse  makes  to 
this  Circular  is  that  the  suppressed  part  of  the  aggregate  of 


THE    DIOCESE    OF    ILLINOIS.  47 

confirmations  consisted  of  those  whose  confirmation  had  been 

postponed  from  the  Convention  year  of  1858  and  1859  to  that 
of  1859  and  1860. 

They  were  not  placed  to  the  credit  of  either  year  in  his 
Circular,  but  they  were  to  the  latter  year  in  his  Report  to  the 
Convention.  Which  year  did  they  belong  to  ?  If  to  the  for- 
mer, where  did  he  register  them  ?  If  to  the  latter,  why  does 
he  suppress  them  in  his  Circular,  and  that  without  any  expla- 
nation with  the  suppression. 

Sharp  reasoning  that. 

The  Chicago  Missionary  contribution  was  decreased  by 
some  $167,  which  the  Bishop  says  was  a  special  donation  to  a 
specific  object,  a  Missionary  within  the  Diocese,  and  which, 
though  included  in  the  aggregate  of  the  Treasurer's  Report, 
the  Bishop  excludes  from  his  Circular. 

But  he  does  not  exclude  it  from  the  whole  amount  which  he 
says  the  whole  Diocese  gave ;  and  hence,  in  drawing  his  con- 
trast between  the  amount  given  by  the  City  of  Chicago  as 
compared  with  the  amount  given  by  the  balance  of  the  Diocese, 
he  takes  this  $167  which  he  deducts  from  Chicago  and  adds  it  to 
the  real  amount  given  by  the  balance  of  the  Diocese.  Or,  in 
other  words,  he  swells  the  amount  given  by  the  balance  of  the 
Diocese  by  leaving  in  the  $1,016  the  $167,  which,  though  con- 
tributed by  Chicago,  he  denies  to  its  credit  because  it  was  a 
special  contribution. 

Sharp  calculation  there,  too. 

Now,  I  have  no  idea  that  Bishop  Whitehouse  thinks  such 
things  wrong,  or  he  would  not  do  them.  But,  I  am  sure,  that 
were  an  abstract  case  of  the  same  kind  laid  before  him,  he 
would,  as  a  Christian  teacher,  be  very  able  to  shew  that  it  was 
at  least  dangerous  to  one's  morals,  if  not  his  religion,  to  be 
guilty  of  them. 

And,  his  brother  Bishops  need  no  evidence  or  argument  to 
shew  them  that  it  is  at  least  a  great  pity  that  Bishop  "White- 


48  BISHOP   "WniTEHOUSE   AND 

house  labors  under  any  need  of  keeping  up  such  a  cross  firing 
with  his  clergy. 

And  if,  as  he  says,  we  are  here  in  Chicago  only  a  violent 
phase  of  Congregationalism,  I  have  only  to  answer  that  it  is 
because  we  have  been  without  any  Episcopal  head  for  nine 
years,  and  we,  like  some  others,  have  been  spoiled  by  becoming 
our  own  Bishops. 

THE  CORPORATOR  SOLE  ENACTMENT. 

I  am  wholly  at  fault  if  there  is  in  the  Church  in  the  United 
States,  a  single  Bishop,  other  than  Bishop  Whitehouse,  who  is 
incorporated  by  the  Legislature  of  his  State;  one  who  can 
to-day  stand  up  in  his  Contention  and  tell  his  Diocese,  his 
Trustees,  his  Standing  Committee,  and  whatever  other  Eccle- 
siastical authorities  there  may  be  in  the  Diocese,  "  I  am  Cor- 
porator Sole;  you  have  nothing  to  say  regarding  the  real 
estate  which  I  hold  as  such,  or  the  proceeds  of  any  sale  thereof. 
A  civil  tribunal  is  the  only  one  which  can  call  me  to  an  account, 
and  none  other  shall." 

Such  an  act  of  incorporation  is  entirely  dissonant  with  the 
genius  and  spirit  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  It  is 
not  compatible  with  the  healthy  commingling  of  the  democratic 
element  in  our  branch  of  the  Church  Catholic. 

The  representative  nature  of  our  organization  is  opposed  to 
any  such  feature.  Such  corporation  is  wholly  unnecessary,  or 
if  it  is  necessaiy,  we  can  have  such  an  enactment  as  will  insure 
the  transfer,  by  mere  operation  of  laic,  of  titles  from  one  Trustee, 
or  set  of  Trustees,  to  his  or  their  successors  in  office,  as  the  Con- 
vention may  appoint  them.  Any  malfeasance,  or  misuse  of  pow- 
er, on  the  part  of  such  Trustees,  would  be  met  promptly  at  the 
succeeding  Convention  of  the  Church  by  the  appointment  of 
others  in  their  stead. 

And  were  such  provision  made  for  the  transfer  of  title,  by 
virtue  of  the  enactment,  without  the  necessity  of  any  deed  or 


THE    DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  49 

conveyance  from  one  Trustee,  or  set  of  Trustees,  to  his  or  their 
successors,  the  question  would  not  arise,  at  any  time,  regarding 
the  property  of  the  Diocese,  which  did  last  summer  arise  in 
the  case  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Chicago. 

And  here  be  it  known,  that  with  merely  the  necessary 
changes  in  the  preamble  to  the  enactment  so  as  render  it  appli- 
cable to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of 
Illinois,  the  law  incorporating  the  Bishop  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  is  verbatim  (saving 
the  mention  of  the  words  "  of  the  Cathedral  Church,")  the 
same  as  that  incorporating  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of 
Chicago. 

The  case  which  ai-ose  with  regard  to  some  property  held  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  was  simply  this: — A  sale  was 
made  of  property  which  had  been  purchased  by  the  former 
Bishop,  (O'Regan,)  who  is  now  in  Europe,  having  resigned  his 
charge  here.  Bishop  Duggan,  the  present  incumbent,  was 
about  to  make  his  conveyance,  supposing  the  title  had  come 
to  him  by  operation  of  law.  The  attorney  of  the  purchaser 
advised  him  not  to  take  the  land,  as  it  was  not  clear  that  the 
property,  not  being  in  actual  use  for  "  charitable,  religious  or 
literary  purposes,  or  for  burial  grounds,  as  provided  for  in  this 
act,"  coidd  be  conveyed  by  the  present  Bishop  unless  his  pre- 
decessor had  conveyed  it  to  him  by  deed. 

Or,  in  other  words,  the  closing  clause  of  the  law  does  not 
authorize,  it  expressly  forbids,  the  Bishop  "  to  hold  real  estate 
in  trust  for  any  Religious  Society  except  for "  the  purposes 
above  named ;  and  hence  any  land  not  in  use  for  such  purposes, 
either  had  not  come  to  the  Bishop  at  all,  he  not  being  a  legal 
recipient  of  the  title  to  such,  or  else  having  come  to  him  would 
have  to  pass  from  him  by  deed,  and  not  by  virtue  of  his  ceasing 
to  be  Bishop. 

A  glance  will  show  where  the  Diocese  might  be  j>laced  by 
such  a  decision  regarding  this  law.    Unwillingness  on  the  part 


50  BISHOP   WHITEHOUSE    .VXD 

of  a  Bishop  to  convey  such  titles  might  cause  the  Diocese 
some  difficulty,  and  subject  her  to  the  necessity  of  a  suit  in 
Chancery.  Death  of  a  Bishop,  with  such  titles  in  him,  would 
of  course  vest  them  in  his  estate,  and  here  even  a  Chancery 
suit  would  not  irrevocably  divest  his  minor  heirs,  of  any  claim 
they  might  have. 

If  these  evils,  or  the  shadow  of  the  possibility  of  them 
exist,  let  us  avoid  them,  and  let  us  have  no  "  Corporator  Sole  " 
enactments. 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  where  they  have  *no  Con- 
ventions, no  Standing  Committees,  no  Lay  element  in  their 
legislative  department,  no  Trustees,  such  an  act  of  incorpora- 
tion may  be  necessary,  and  it  is  consonant  with  the  general 
plan  and  system  of  their  Church.  But  with  us  such  is  not  the 
case,  and  it  should  not  be  allowed  that  in  temporal  matters  a 
Bishop  should  be  able  to  hold  his  Diocese  at  bay  in  this 
manner. 

THE    HISTORY    OF    THE    FPXAL    SETTLEMENT    OP   THE    CATHEDRAL 
LOT    QUESTION. 

The  Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  Chicago,  desiring  to  purchase 
from  Mr.  Beers  part  of  the  property  which  had  been  talked  of 
as  the  site  of  the  Bishop's  Cathedral,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pratt,  the 
Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  was  asked  to  see  Bishop  Whitehouse 
and  learn  from  hhn  the  terms  on  which  could  be  procured  a 
release  of  the  Cathedral  lot.  On  the  20th  day  of  June,  1860, 
Mr.  Pratt  asked  of  the  Bishop  the  privilege  of  an  interview. 
By  appointment  they  met  at  Mr.  Pratt's  study.  On  opening 
the  subject,  the  Bishop  said  that  he  did  not  know  that  such 
was  the  object  of  the  interview,  and  he,  therefore,  would  like 
a  little  time  to  reflect  on  the  matter.  He  then  went  into  a  full 
history  of  the  question  relating  to  the  property,  its  title,  etc. 
Mr.  Pratt  knew  nothing  of  it,  save  that  there  had  been  a  mis- 


THE    DIOCESE    OF    ILLINOIS. 


understanding,  and  that  the  Bishop  held  the  title  to  one  lot, 
and  that  Trinity  Church  desired  to  purchase  part  of  it  of  Mr. 
Beers,  and  that  this  could  not  be  done  till  the  Bishop  had 
re-conveyed  it  to  Mr.  Beers. 

The  Bishop  then  began  to  show  his  claim  to  the  property, 
and  on  his  including  lot  three,  or  the  residence  lot,  Mr.  Pratt 
informed  him  that  Mr.  Beers  did  not  admit — he  expressly 
denied — that  the  Bishop  had  any  claim  to  this,  and  asked  only 
a  re-conveyance  of  the  Cathedral  lot.  The  Bishop,  however, 
insisted  upon  including  the  residence  lot  in  a  calculation 
which  he  desired  Mr.  Pratt  to  put  down  in  writing,  as  he 
would  dictate  it.  Mr.  Pratt  sat  down,  and  taking  his  pen  he 
made  figures  as  the  Bishop  directed,  and  when  he  had  done 
so  he  told  him  to  add  them  up.  He  did  so.  He  then 
directed  him  to  divide  the  sum  by  two.  He  did  so,  and  the 
quotient  was  ten  thousand  ($10,000)  dollars. 

There,  now,  said  the  Bishop,  that  is  my  interest  in  the  prop- 
erty, in  addition  to  taxes,  assessments  and  interest  on  them. 

To  which  Mr.  Pratt  replied  :  "  Well,  Bishop,  do  you  mean  to 
say  that  you  require  the  payment  of  that  amount ;  because  if 
you  do  there  is  no  use  of  talking  any  more  regarding  the 
matter.     Mr.  Beers,  I  know,  will  not  give  so  much." 

The  result  of  further  discussion  was,  that  in  reply  to  the 
question  as  to  whether  he  would  take  $0,000,"  the  Bishop 
said:  "I  will  not  make  any  agreement  to  that  effect.  If, 
however,  $6,000and  taxes  are  offered  me,  I  willentertain  the 
proposal." 

Mr.  Pratt  said  he  would  submit  the  matter  to  Mr.  Beers. 

On  his  leaving,  the  Bishop  said  :  "  Do  not  name  $6,000  to  Mi- 
Beers  at  once ;  ask  $8,000,  and  perhaps  he  may  offer  $7,000. 
I  will  expect  you  to  get  all  you  can  for  me." 

To  this  Mr.  Pratt  answered :  "  I  cannot  ask  Mr.  Beers  to  give 
you  any  more  than  $6,000."     He  then  left  and  saw  Mr.  Beers. 


52  BISIIOP   WIIITEIIOUSE    AND 

During  these  interviews,  Mr.  Pratt  asked  the  Bishop  what  he 
intended  doing  with  the  lot.  lie  said  he  intended  building  on 
it.  lie  had  just  had  the  offer  of  the  stone  from  one  gentle- 
man, and  of  the  plans  from  another,  an  architect,  and  of  the 
services  of  another  in  the  way  of  superintendence,  and  of 
81,000  from  another,  and  that  he  would  thus  so  far  comply 
with  the  requirements  of  the  deed  as  to  bring  himself  within 
its  limits. 

To  this  Mr.  Pratt  answered  :  "  If  you  do  attempt  to  build  on 
the  lot,  Bishop,  you  will  be  enjoined  most  surely,  as  Mr.  Beers 
would  resist  any  such  move." 

"  Ah,  well,"  said  he,  "  if  they  do  this  it  will  only  lengthen 
the  time  in  which  I  have  to  build,  in  compliance  with  the 
conditions  of  the  deed." 

Mr.  Beers  very  reluctantly,  and  with  much  feeling  of  indig- 
nation, at  length  assented  to  the  payment  of  the  $6,000.  Mr. 
Pratt  informed  the  Bishop  of  Mr.  Beers'  determination,  and  a 
time  was  set  for  the  drawing  of  the  papers.  The  deed  was 
drawn,  and,  before  it  was  executed,  it  was  submitted  to  Mr. 
Beers.  The  consideration  named  was  one  dollar.  Mr.  Beers 
objected  to  this.  The  Bishop  said  that  it  was  a  mere  matter 
of  form,  but  that  he  could  not  consent  to  receive  the  $6,000 
on  the  Cathedral  lot,  as  that  might  give  the  matter  the  appear- 
ance of  a  trust,  and  he  desired  expressly  to  avoid  this.  He 
would  not  consent  to  receive  the  funds  on  the  Cathedral  lot — 
that  Mr.  Beers  might  consider  the  $6,000  given  to  him  on  any 
ground  he  pleased,  "  love  and  affection,"  or  any  other  basis. 
To  which  Mr.  Beers  very  emphatically  replied,  "  that  he  paid 
the  $6,000  for  the  deed  of  the  Cathedral  lot,  and  that  he  would 
not  give  him  two  cents  for  '  love  and  affection.'  " 

Mr.  Beers  consulted  his  attorney  regarding  the  sufficiency  of 
the  consideration  mentioned  in  the  deed.     He  was,  of  course, 
assured  that  the  one  dollar   conveyed  the  title  as   perfectly  as 
the  mention  of  $6,000  would,  and  if  it  was  a  matter  of  impor- 


THE   DIOCESE   OF   ILLINOIS.  53 

tance  to  him  to  have  the  deed,  he  had  better  take  it,  and  let 
the  Bishop  follow  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience  regarding 
the  disposal  he  would  make  of  the  fimds. 

Mr.  Beers  returned  to  the  Bishop  and  told  him  he  would  take 
the  deed  as  it  was.  In  order  to  avoid  any  question  at  the  time 
of  signing,  Mr.  Beers  drew  from  his  pocket  a  certified  check 
for  the  $6,000,  and  handing  it  to  the  Bishop,  asked  him  if  that 
woidd  do,  or  if  he  would  require  the  funds.  The  Bishop, 
examining  the  check,  said  it  would  do,  and  he  put  it  into  his 
pocket. 

The  next  morning  they  met  for  the  signing  of  the 
papers.  The  Bishop  then,  remarking  to  Mr.  Beers  that  he 
believed  this  was  a  final  adjustment  of  all  the  matters  between 
them,  asked  him  to  sign  the  document,  which  I  have  given 
on  pages  41  and  42  of  this  pamphlet,  the  clause  in  brackets, 
of  course  not  yet  in  it. 

Mr.  Beers,  at  first  supposing  it  merely  to  be  a  receipt  in  full, 
was  willing  to  sign  it ;  but  on  reading  it,  and  finding  it  to  be  a 
declaration  that  he  Was  receiving  the  $6,000  for  a  release  of 
the  residence  lot,  indignantly  declined  doing  so,  on  the  ground 
of  its  being  an  untruth. 

The  Bishop  then  asked  that  the  Rev'd  Mr.  Pratt  should  be 
called  in,  as  he  understood  the  whole  matter. 

Mr.  Beers  saw  Mr.  Pratt,  and  both  went  at  once  to  the 
Bishop. 

Mr.  Pratt  then  stated,  that  he  had  never  intimated  that  Mr. 
Beers  would  pay  the  $6,000,  or  any  part  of  it,  on  the  residence 
lot ;  that  he  had  throughout  declared  that  Mr.  Beers  did  not 
consider  the  Bishop  had  any  claim  to  that  lot,  and  that  he  did 
not  ask  any  release  of  it. 

Mr.  Pratt,  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  proposed,  that  in 
order  to  make  it  at  all  possible  for  Mr.  Beers  to  sign  the  paper, 
the  clause  which  I  have  given  in  brackets,  should  be  inserted. 
The  attorney,  on  the  Bishop  asking  how  that  would  do,  said  it 


54  BISHOP   WHITEHOUSE    AND 

would  defeat  the  very  purpose  the  Bishop  had  in  view.  "  How 
so  ?  "  asked  the  Bishop.  To  which  the  attorney  replied,  "  By 
rendering  it  debatable  as  to  which  lot  you  receive  the  money 
on,  leaving  it  open  to  construction,  and  giving  room  for  a  claim 
on  you  for  the  funds." 

Then  said  the  Bishop,  "  I  will  not  consent  to  the  interpola- 
tion." 

"  Well,  Bishop,"  said  Mr.  Beers,  "it  appears  we  cannot  trade, 
please  hand  me  back  my  check." 

To  which  the  Bishop  replied,  "  Well,  sir,  I  will  arrange  that 
with  you." 

Mr.  Beers  says  he  was  at  once  convinced  that  the  money  had 
been  drawn  on  the  check. 

Time  was  then  given  for  consultation  and  reflection ; 
and  another  meeting  was  appointed.  During  the  interval,  Mr. 
Beers  went  to  the  bank,  and  meeting  Stiles  Burton  and  Jno. 
H.  Kinzie,  Esquires,  at  the  bank,  he  asked  them  to  witness  his 
question,  and  in  reply  to  his  application  to  the  teller,  he  was 
informed  that  Bishop  Whitehouse  had  had  the  check  of  Mr. 
Beers,  of  $6,000,  cashed. 

So  that,  before  the  deed  was  executed,  and  while  Mr. 
Beers  was  protesting  against  signing  a  paper,  the  execution 
of  which  the  Bishop  was  making  a  condition  precedent  to 
the  making  and  delivery  of  the  deed,  the  check  was  cashed. 

This  circumstance  is  mentioned  here,  not  insinuating  that 
Bishop  Whitehouse  intended  any  wrong,  but  to  show  the 
avidity  with  which  he  receives  money,  and  to  show  the  aptness 
of  the  man  in  pecuniary  matters. 

Why  such  haste  to  cash  the  check  ?  It  was  certified,  and 
would  not  have  spoiled  by  keeping. 

Reference  was  finally  made  to  the  Hon.  Jno.  M.  Wilson,  who 
decided,  after  hearing  the  statements  of  the  Bishop  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Pratt  regarding  the  contract  in  relation  to  the  lots 
between   the    former  for  himself,  and  the  latter  in  behalf  of 


THE    DIOCESE    OF   ILLINOIS.  55 

Mr.  Beers,  that  the  recital  in  the  memorandum  of  agreement 
between  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Beers  was  not  a  correct  statement 
of  facts,  and  proposed  that  it  should  be  changed  so  as  to  recite 
the  giving  of  the  deed  of  lot  two  as  well  as  the  agreement 
regarding  lot  three,  and  that  the  body  of  the  agreement  be 
changed  to  correspond  with  the  recital. 

To  this  the  Bishop  objected. 

Mr.  Pratt  then  stated  that  he  had  before  proposed  to  alter 
the  body  of  the  agreement  by  inserting  certain  clauses,  the 
purport  of  which  he  stated ;  and  which  Judge  Wilson  now 
understands  to  have  been  the  same  in  substance,  if  not  ver- 
batim, as  those  already  given  in  brackets. 

The  Bishop  at  length  assented  to  the  insertion  of  the  clause 
which  had  been  proposed  by  Mr.  Pratt. 

During  these  interviews,  the  Bishop  stated  expressly  to  Mi*. 
Pratt  that  he  considered  the  proceeds  of  any  adjustment  of 
this  matter  as  much  his  as  any  property  he  had  on  earth,  and 
that  he  was  by  no  means  sure  as  to  whether  he  would  use  the 
funds  to  pay  his  back  salary,  or  to  build  a  church  ;  and  yet  in 
his  Circular  issued  just  after  the  Convention,  he  says  he  always 
intended  them  to  be  applied  to  the  purpose  of  building  a 
Bishop's  Church. 

The  parties  then,  Mr.  Beers  not  having  gone  with  the 
Bishop  and  Mr.  Pratt  to  Judge  Wilson's,  but  having  gone  to 
bank  during  the  interval,  convened  at  the  Notary's  office  dur- 
ing the  afternoon,  and  the  papers  were  signed  and  the  matter 
closed. 

The  negotiations  began  on  the  20th  and  closed  the  22nd  of 
June,  1860.  The  Bishop  using  all  the  time  in  counselling  and 
planning  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  the  trust,  which  he 
announced  to  the  Convention  he  all  the  while,  from  the  first, 
intended  to  observe. 

For  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  this  "  History  of  the 
Final  Settlement,"  I  refer  to  the  Certificate  on  the  next  page. 


CEKTIFICATE. 

We  have  read  the  proof-sheets  of  the  foregoing  "History  of  the  Final 
Settlement  of  the  Cathedral  Lot  Question,"  as  given  by  Mr.  Kerfoot,  and  we 
pronounce  it  correct  so  far  as  we  were  connected  with  the  same,. and  were 
present  a*  the  interviews  therein  named. 

JAMES  PRATT, 
Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Chicago. 
CYRENIUS  BEERS. 
Chicago;  November  1860.  JOHN  M.  WILSON. 


H 

it 


